However, the controversial move has been branded “madness” by another councillor and has sparked fears of an increase in accidents involving cyclists and pedestrians.

Cllr Gritt, who represents Kinson North, said: “It’s a brave decision and it’s an attempt to get away from this us-and-them attitude towards cyclists which strangely seems to ferment in this town.

“It’s an anti-cycling attitude which seems to have always been around and I cannot understand it. I remember the first cycle route I campaigned on was in Glenferness Avenue and people said then we couldn’t have that there.

“I also supported cycling on the promenade which I think is an unqualified success.

“We’ve got to support this trial and remind cyclists to be aware of pedestrians and of the speed limits and then I am sure it will be a success too.”

Share article

However independent Cllr Ron Whittaker, who rep-resents Throop and Muscliff, said: “One only has to look at the speed of some cyclists when they come down Richmond Hill and hit The Square to see that this will cause a problem.

“The Square is extremely busy with children and elderly folk often enjoying music and other entertainment during the summer, as is the Pier Approach. These cyclists can dismount for the few extra minutes it will take them.”

Has Mr Gritt ever had the experience of a cyclist hurtling down Richmond Hill, and missing him by millimetres. Or Orchard Street (next to Primark)? Or stood anywhere on Commercial Road and nearly been knocked off his feet. Plenty of people about who have walking aids, unsteady on their feet, this is going to fill their hearts with joy, already frightening enough.

Has Mr Gritt ever had the experience of a cyclist hurtling down Richmond Hill, and missing him by millimetres. Or Orchard Street (next to Primark)? Or stood anywhere on Commercial Road and nearly been knocked off his feet. Plenty of people about who have walking aids, unsteady on their feet, this is going to fill their hearts with joy, already frightening enough.KLH

Has Mr Gritt ever had the experience of a cyclist hurtling down Richmond Hill, and missing him by millimetres. Or Orchard Street (next to Primark)? Or stood anywhere on Commercial Road and nearly been knocked off his feet. Plenty of people about who have walking aids, unsteady on their feet, this is going to fill their hearts with joy, already frightening enough.

Score: 41

saynomore says...8:22am Sat 26 Apr 14

Did anyone not see the report on southern news it showed cyclists whizzing past the reporter ,one idiot going as fast as he could weaving in and out of pedestrians on the prom and another cycling right over the "No Cycling " sign on the ground.These morons don't give a stuff anyway,make the town cycle friendly why bother.

Did anyone not see the report on southern news it showed cyclists whizzing past the reporter ,one idiot going as fast as he could weaving in and out of pedestrians on the prom and another cycling right over the "No Cycling " sign on the ground.These morons don't give a stuff anyway,make the town cycle friendly why bother.saynomore

Did anyone not see the report on southern news it showed cyclists whizzing past the reporter ,one idiot going as fast as he could weaving in and out of pedestrians on the prom and another cycling right over the "No Cycling " sign on the ground.These morons don't give a stuff anyway,make the town cycle friendly why bother.

Score: 55

susi.m says...8:24am Sat 26 Apr 14

Cyclists should have to pass a test and be insured and be registered before being able to cycle where there are old people and/or children. I am sure that responsible cyclists would support this idea.

Cyclists should have to pass a test and be insured and be registered before being able to cycle where there are old people and/or children.
I am sure that responsible cyclists would support this idea.susi.m

Cyclists should have to pass a test and be insured and be registered before being able to cycle where there are old people and/or children. I am sure that responsible cyclists would support this idea.

Score: 6

richardcompton3 says...8:28am Sat 26 Apr 14

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade.
Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.richardcompton3

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

Score: 46

sarahinpoole says...8:28am Sat 26 Apr 14

I would hope most cyclists would adopt a 'cycling appropriately for the conditions' attitude. Cycle, with consideration, if it's a clear route and safe to do so. I regularly cycle across the square at 8am ish with no problems. But my return journey at 6 is usually busy with pedestrians - so I get off and push. As a 'vehicle' if choosing to cycle on the pavement then, in my mind, it is the cyclists responsibility to avoid pedestrians and not the other way round. I think it's a great idea to lift the restrictions. But perhaps a few 'white lines' of a cycle lane and an obvious route across the Square would help further?

I would hope most cyclists would adopt a 'cycling appropriately for the conditions' attitude. Cycle, with consideration, if it's a clear route and safe to do so. I regularly cycle across the square at 8am ish with no problems. But my return journey at 6 is usually busy with pedestrians - so I get off and push. As a 'vehicle' if choosing to cycle on the pavement then, in my mind, it is the cyclists responsibility to avoid pedestrians and not the other way round. I think it's a great idea to lift the restrictions. But perhaps a few 'white lines' of a cycle
lane and an obvious route across the Square would help further?sarahinpoole

I would hope most cyclists would adopt a 'cycling appropriately for the conditions' attitude. Cycle, with consideration, if it's a clear route and safe to do so. I regularly cycle across the square at 8am ish with no problems. But my return journey at 6 is usually busy with pedestrians - so I get off and push. As a 'vehicle' if choosing to cycle on the pavement then, in my mind, it is the cyclists responsibility to avoid pedestrians and not the other way round. I think it's a great idea to lift the restrictions. But perhaps a few 'white lines' of a cycle lane and an obvious route across the Square would help further?

Score: 87

cornelieus says...8:39am Sat 26 Apr 14

I thought this link might just save people a bit of time... http://www.photogob. co.uk/2014/02/26/dea lingwithcyclists/

I thought this link might just save people a bit of time...
http://www.photogob.
co.uk/2014/02/26/dea
lingwithcyclists/cornelieus

I thought this link might just save people a bit of time... http://www.photogob. co.uk/2014/02/26/dea lingwithcyclists/

Score: -1

Morrigan says...8:41am Sat 26 Apr 14

In a town full of both elderly and young, whoever passed this must be crazy! They are certainly not thinking of small children or elderly people with walking aids etc! I can hear the sound of compo claims already >:o(

In a town full of both elderly and young, whoever passed this must be crazy! They are certainly not thinking of small children or elderly people with walking aids etc!
I can hear the sound of compo claims already >:o(Morrigan

In a town full of both elderly and young, whoever passed this must be crazy! They are certainly not thinking of small children or elderly people with walking aids etc! I can hear the sound of compo claims already >:o(

Score: 22

Self-Righteous Mother says...8:43am Sat 26 Apr 14

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade.
Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.[/p][/quote]For Richard and the CLLRs
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW
pY#t=454
Website: http://www.aviewfrom
thecyclepath.com/201
3/07/an-invitation-t
o-boris-johnson-to-c
ity.html
If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website.
And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change.
Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.Self-Righteous Mother

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Score: 36

Townee says...8:51am Sat 26 Apr 14

I hope councillor Gritt takes responsibility for supporting this move when someone get knocked down by a cyclist and badly hurt. Sure as eggs are eggs it will happen not once but many times. Before this council start giving cyclists free movement they should consider all cyclist need insurance, they need to have taken a test and need to be fined for breaking the laws of the road the same as car drivers do. I'm not anti cyclist but they must abide by the rules the same as motorists.

I hope councillor Gritt takes responsibility for supporting this move when someone get knocked down by a cyclist and badly hurt. Sure as eggs are eggs it will happen not once but many times.
Before this council start giving cyclists free movement they should consider all cyclist need insurance, they need to have taken a test and need to be fined for breaking the laws of the road the same as car drivers do.
I'm not anti cyclist but they must abide by the rules the same as motorists.Townee

I hope councillor Gritt takes responsibility for supporting this move when someone get knocked down by a cyclist and badly hurt. Sure as eggs are eggs it will happen not once but many times. Before this council start giving cyclists free movement they should consider all cyclist need insurance, they need to have taken a test and need to be fined for breaking the laws of the road the same as car drivers do. I'm not anti cyclist but they must abide by the rules the same as motorists.

Score: 22

spooki says...9:13am Sat 26 Apr 14

“We’ve got to support this trial and remind cyclists to be aware of pedestrians and of the speed limits and then I am sure it will be a success too.” What was that "P" word there? PEDESTRIAN? pe·des·tri·an noun 1. a person who goes or travels on foot; walker. adjective 2. going or performed on foot; walking. 3. of or pertaining to walking. Why are there roads if the cyclists are on the pavement? If cyclists (and motorists) ALL knew how to follow road rules there wouldn't be a problem. One way roads and traffic lights are there for everyone to use correctly otherwise there's no point. Perhaps we should have roads like Japan or India where everyone does as they wish. Or is that the plan? I only have a little car so I'll drive that on the pedestrian bit today because I can't be bothered to use the roads correctly.

“We’ve got to support this trial and remind cyclists to be aware of pedestrians and of the speed limits and then I am sure it will be a success too.”
What was that "P" word there? PEDESTRIAN?
pe·des·tri·an
noun
1. a person who goes or travels on foot; walker.
adjective
2. going or performed on foot; walking.
3. of or pertaining to walking.
Why are there roads if the cyclists are on the pavement? If cyclists (and motorists) ALL knew how to follow road rules there wouldn't be a problem. One way roads and traffic lights are there for everyone to use correctly otherwise there's no point. Perhaps we should have roads like Japan or India where everyone does as they wish. Or is that the plan?
I only have a little car so I'll drive that on the pedestrian bit today because I can't be bothered to use the roads correctly.spooki

“We’ve got to support this trial and remind cyclists to be aware of pedestrians and of the speed limits and then I am sure it will be a success too.” What was that "P" word there? PEDESTRIAN? pe·des·tri·an noun 1. a person who goes or travels on foot; walker. adjective 2. going or performed on foot; walking. 3. of or pertaining to walking. Why are there roads if the cyclists are on the pavement? If cyclists (and motorists) ALL knew how to follow road rules there wouldn't be a problem. One way roads and traffic lights are there for everyone to use correctly otherwise there's no point. Perhaps we should have roads like Japan or India where everyone does as they wish. Or is that the plan? I only have a little car so I'll drive that on the pedestrian bit today because I can't be bothered to use the roads correctly.

Score: -10

Ivy says...9:18am Sat 26 Apr 14

As a regular cyclist and an old woman I welcome this move by the Council, it shows they're serious about encouraging cycling in the Town. I would urge all cyclists and pedestrians to act responsibly and have respect for others.

As a regular cyclist and an old woman I welcome this move by the Council, it shows they're serious about encouraging cycling in the Town. I would urge all cyclists and pedestrians to act responsibly and have respect for others.Ivy

As a regular cyclist and an old woman I welcome this move by the Council, it shows they're serious about encouraging cycling in the Town. I would urge all cyclists and pedestrians to act responsibly and have respect for others.

Score: 18

Graham Rees says...9:21am Sat 26 Apr 14

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!Graham Rees

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

Score: 18

master plan says...9:24am Sat 26 Apr 14

This happens in many city's and town around the world. Why is it a problem in Bournemouth?

This happens in many city's and town around the world.
Why is it a problem in Bournemouth?master plan

This happens in many city's and town around the world. Why is it a problem in Bournemouth?

Score: 26

arthur1948 says...9:25am Sat 26 Apr 14

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything?? what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?.... this council really does take the biscuit....

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything??
what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?....
this council really does take the biscuit....arthur1948

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything?? what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?.... this council really does take the biscuit....

Score: 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...9:26am Sat 26 Apr 14

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

[quote][p][bold]Graham Rees[/bold] wrote:
I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix![/p][/quote]But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!The-Bleeding-Obvious

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

Score: 2

cest vrai says...9:28am Sat 26 Apr 14

Don't worry. Once the travellers who are in town currently looking for a site pitch up on the square/pier approach then cyclists will be your last concern.

Don't worry. Once the travellers who are in town currently looking for a site pitch up on the square/pier approach then cyclists will be your last concern.cest vrai

Don't worry. Once the travellers who are in town currently looking for a site pitch up on the square/pier approach then cyclists will be your last concern.

Score: 8

speedy231278 says...9:30am Sat 26 Apr 14

Is that even the square in the picture? The shops in it have Old Christchurch Road as their address. Surely the square is behind the camera? Is Old Christchurch Road having the restriction lifted too?

Is that even the square in the picture? The shops in it have Old Christchurch Road as their address. Surely the square is behind the camera? Is Old Christchurch Road having the restriction lifted too?speedy231278

Is that even the square in the picture? The shops in it have Old Christchurch Road as their address. Surely the square is behind the camera? Is Old Christchurch Road having the restriction lifted too?

Score: 7

live-and-let-live says...9:44am Sat 26 Apr 14

anyone who has had a much loved family member killed while cycling on the road will applaud this idea. keep cyclists safe. they are someones son or daughter.

anyone who has had a much loved family member killed while cycling on the road will applaud this idea. keep cyclists safe. they are someones son or daughter.live-and-let-live

anyone who has had a much loved family member killed while cycling on the road will applaud this idea. keep cyclists safe. they are someones son or daughter.

Score: 17

High Treason says...9:53am Sat 26 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.

[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Graham Rees[/bold] wrote:
I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix![/p][/quote]But the mix is safer than car and cyclist![/p][/quote]When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.High Treason

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.

Score: 9

cest vrai says...10:01am Sat 26 Apr 14

High Treason wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.

But that's the point it is no longer a pedestrian area for the trial period so all will need to take some responsibility. And for those that bleat on about insurance etc how many pedestrians are specifically insured for pounding the streets.

[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Graham Rees[/bold] wrote:
I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix![/p][/quote]But the mix is safer than car and cyclist![/p][/quote]When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.[/p][/quote]But that's the point it is no longer a pedestrian area for the trial period so all will need to take some responsibility. And for those that bleat on about insurance etc how many pedestrians are specifically insured for pounding the streets.cest vrai

High Treason wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.

But that's the point it is no longer a pedestrian area for the trial period so all will need to take some responsibility. And for those that bleat on about insurance etc how many pedestrians are specifically insured for pounding the streets.

Score: -7

InkZ says...10:25am Sat 26 Apr 14

Yes lets continue to make life as hard as possible for cyclists and keep forcing people in to cars... This can't happen quick enough. Might encourage more people to cycle in to town / work. The total disrespect for cyclists is what makes it so dangerous on the road. The more people we encourage on to bikes the safer it will be, The most dangerous thing for pedestrians is stepping out in to the road without looking which I experience on an almost daily basis and I don't come on here bleating that they need insurance and tests to cross the road. The one thing which I really don't understand is why cars are allowed before and after a certain time on the pedestrian areas but cycling is banned. I'd be happy as a compromise to at least allow cycles at the same time as cars. You have to take some pretty big detours to get to work without dismounting, it's a joke. The times across the pier need adjusting as well to be more commuter friendly although I don't use that route myself. I was in London earlier this year where all the parks were shared spaces and it was great to see and worked really well. Ron Whittaker has a totally stupid comment, you can't compare cyclists coming down a road fast, to cycling in a pedestrain area! He should at least come up with a soluton rather than another narrow minded view that continues to make cycling to town difficult.

Yes lets continue to make life as hard as possible for cyclists and keep forcing people in to cars...
This can't happen quick enough. Might encourage more people to cycle in to town / work. The total disrespect for cyclists is what makes it so dangerous on the road. The more people we encourage on to bikes the safer it will be,
The most dangerous thing for pedestrians is stepping out in to the road without looking which I experience on an almost daily basis and I don't come on here bleating that they need insurance and tests to cross the road.
The one thing which I really don't understand is why cars are allowed before and after a certain time on the pedestrian areas but cycling is banned. I'd be happy as a compromise to at least allow cycles at the same time as cars. You have to take some pretty big detours to get to work without dismounting, it's a joke. The times across the pier need adjusting as well to be more commuter friendly although I don't use that route myself.
I was in London earlier this year where all the parks were shared spaces and it was great to see and worked really well.
Ron Whittaker has a totally stupid comment, you can't compare cyclists coming down a road fast, to cycling in a pedestrain area! He should at least come up with a soluton rather than another narrow minded view that continues to make cycling to town difficult.InkZ

Yes lets continue to make life as hard as possible for cyclists and keep forcing people in to cars... This can't happen quick enough. Might encourage more people to cycle in to town / work. The total disrespect for cyclists is what makes it so dangerous on the road. The more people we encourage on to bikes the safer it will be, The most dangerous thing for pedestrians is stepping out in to the road without looking which I experience on an almost daily basis and I don't come on here bleating that they need insurance and tests to cross the road. The one thing which I really don't understand is why cars are allowed before and after a certain time on the pedestrian areas but cycling is banned. I'd be happy as a compromise to at least allow cycles at the same time as cars. You have to take some pretty big detours to get to work without dismounting, it's a joke. The times across the pier need adjusting as well to be more commuter friendly although I don't use that route myself. I was in London earlier this year where all the parks were shared spaces and it was great to see and worked really well. Ron Whittaker has a totally stupid comment, you can't compare cyclists coming down a road fast, to cycling in a pedestrain area! He should at least come up with a soluton rather than another narrow minded view that continues to make cycling to town difficult.

Score: 10

Loonyspoon says...10:25am Sat 26 Apr 14

What about all the times pedestrians with their heads down texting or surfing the net on their mobiles walk into you? Or selfish pedestrians who plow and barge into other people because they have no manners/think they are more important or just don't care? Everybody needs to take responsibility for the way they behave. Cyclists, pedestrians,car users,mobility scooters,etc...all of us.I find it so sad that tolerance,courtesy and kindness seem to be a thing of the past now.

What about all the times pedestrians with their heads down texting or surfing the net on their mobiles walk into you? Or selfish pedestrians who plow and barge into other people because they have no manners/think they are more important or just don't care? Everybody needs to take responsibility for the way they behave. Cyclists, pedestrians,car users,mobility scooters,etc...all of us.I find it so sad that tolerance,courtesy and kindness seem to be a thing of the past now.Loonyspoon

What about all the times pedestrians with their heads down texting or surfing the net on their mobiles walk into you? Or selfish pedestrians who plow and barge into other people because they have no manners/think they are more important or just don't care? Everybody needs to take responsibility for the way they behave. Cyclists, pedestrians,car users,mobility scooters,etc...all of us.I find it so sad that tolerance,courtesy and kindness seem to be a thing of the past now.

Score: 48

B'mth West says...10:28am Sat 26 Apr 14

Cycles by their nature are quiet machines , therefor it would not be too unreasonable to make it obligatory that all cycles should carry a means of warning of their approach from behind pedestrians, such as the good old fashioned bell .

Cycles by their nature are quiet machines , therefor it would not be too unreasonable to make it obligatory that all cycles should carry a means of warning of their approach from behind pedestrians, such as the good old fashioned bell .B'mth West

Cycles by their nature are quiet machines , therefor it would not be too unreasonable to make it obligatory that all cycles should carry a means of warning of their approach from behind pedestrians, such as the good old fashioned bell .

Score: 21

scrumpyjack says...10:33am Sat 26 Apr 14

arthur1948 wrote…

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything?? what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?.... this council really does take the biscuit....

What a good point. Although to fair I don't think many of the visually impaired will want to cycle. As for the hard of hearing, yes that is a pickle. As someone with good hearing I can hear a bike from at least 2 feet away (although to fair it usually the puffing of cyclist as in my experience bikes don't make a great deal of noise). I agree that it seems the powers that be must have gone mad, they appear to have completely ignored the 9 (NINE) reported incidents of pedestrians being bit by a bike over a 5 year period and seem to have only been concerned with the paltry 638 reported incidents where cyclists have been hit by cars over the same period. For god's sakes where do their priorities lie????? I pay for those pavements through my poll tax and don't want free loading cyclists invading MY space.

[quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote:
pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything??
what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?....
this council really does take the biscuit....[/p][/quote]What a good point. Although to fair I don't think many of the visually impaired will want to cycle.
As for the hard of hearing, yes that is a pickle. As someone with good hearing I can hear a bike from at least 2 feet away (although to fair it usually the puffing of cyclist as in my experience bikes don't make a great deal of noise).
I agree that it seems the powers that be must have gone mad, they appear to have completely ignored the 9 (NINE) reported incidents of pedestrians being bit by a bike over a 5 year period and seem to have only been concerned with the paltry 638 reported incidents where cyclists have been hit by cars over the same period.
For god's sakes where do their priorities lie????? I pay for those pavements through my poll tax and don't want free loading cyclists invading MY space.scrumpyjack

arthur1948 wrote…

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything?? what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?.... this council really does take the biscuit....

What a good point. Although to fair I don't think many of the visually impaired will want to cycle. As for the hard of hearing, yes that is a pickle. As someone with good hearing I can hear a bike from at least 2 feet away (although to fair it usually the puffing of cyclist as in my experience bikes don't make a great deal of noise). I agree that it seems the powers that be must have gone mad, they appear to have completely ignored the 9 (NINE) reported incidents of pedestrians being bit by a bike over a 5 year period and seem to have only been concerned with the paltry 638 reported incidents where cyclists have been hit by cars over the same period. For god's sakes where do their priorities lie????? I pay for those pavements through my poll tax and don't want free loading cyclists invading MY space.

Score: 13

Valerie W. says...10:36am Sat 26 Apr 14

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.Valerie W.

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.

Score: -7

politicaltrainspotter says...10:38am Sat 26 Apr 14

There's an accident awaiting to happen unfortunatley and whoever considered this idea really has lost touch with reality.Not only cyclist but there will be skateboarders.For a town that wants to promote itself as a leading resort then think again. We have witnessed enough incidents regarding cyclist v pedestrian and one that comes to mind is the little child that was hit by a cyclist on the prom and then sped off. I noticed there is no comments from the Town Centre Manager, Roger Parker on this issue? Also there would have to signage for the trial period and if passed to allow cycling all year round what would the cost be to the council tax payer? Whatever time of year it is dangerous.For example the Square in the summer with people walking and side shows and then the hazard of cyclist weaving their way through.One thing that is not 'common' in this council is sense.

There's an accident awaiting to happen unfortunatley and whoever considered this idea really has lost touch with reality.Not only cyclist but there will be skateboarders.For a town that wants to promote itself as a leading resort then think again.
We have witnessed enough incidents regarding cyclist v pedestrian and one that comes to mind is the little child that was hit by a cyclist on the prom and then sped off.
I noticed there is no comments from the Town Centre Manager, Roger Parker on this issue?
Also there would have to signage for the trial period and if passed to allow cycling all year round what would the cost be to the council tax payer?
Whatever time of year it is dangerous.For example the Square in the summer with people walking and side shows and then the hazard of cyclist weaving their way through.One thing that is not 'common' in this council is sense.politicaltrainspotter

There's an accident awaiting to happen unfortunatley and whoever considered this idea really has lost touch with reality.Not only cyclist but there will be skateboarders.For a town that wants to promote itself as a leading resort then think again. We have witnessed enough incidents regarding cyclist v pedestrian and one that comes to mind is the little child that was hit by a cyclist on the prom and then sped off. I noticed there is no comments from the Town Centre Manager, Roger Parker on this issue? Also there would have to signage for the trial period and if passed to allow cycling all year round what would the cost be to the council tax payer? Whatever time of year it is dangerous.For example the Square in the summer with people walking and side shows and then the hazard of cyclist weaving their way through.One thing that is not 'common' in this council is sense.

Score: 5

cest vrai says...10:38am Sat 26 Apr 14

Valerie W. wrote…

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.

Yes baffled why it took so long.

[quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote:
This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.[/p][/quote]Yes baffled why it took so long.cest vrai

Valerie W. wrote…

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.

Yes baffled why it took so long.

Score: 9

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...10:44am Sat 26 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

High Treason wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.

But that's the point it is no longer a pedestrian area for the trial period so all will need to take some responsibility. And for those that bleat on about insurance etc how many pedestrians are specifically insured for pounding the streets.

It needs to be on equal terms i.e. pedestrians and cyclists should have equal right of way. A cyclist has to look where he is going, pedestrians tend to wander aimlessly, there must be an element of responsibility on pedestrians to be bike aware. It's very easy for a pedestrian to blindly side step into the path of a cyclist resulting in injury to both. Attributing automatically all blame on the cyclist in any collision is unfair if the cyclist is cycling resposibly, after all, the cyclist has further to fall.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Graham Rees[/bold] wrote:
I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix![/p][/quote]But the mix is safer than car and cyclist![/p][/quote]When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.[/p][/quote]But that's the point it is no longer a pedestrian area for the trial period so all will need to take some responsibility. And for those that bleat on about insurance etc how many pedestrians are specifically insured for pounding the streets.[/p][/quote]It needs to be on equal terms i.e. pedestrians and cyclists should have equal right of way. A cyclist has to look where he is going, pedestrians tend to wander aimlessly, there must be an element of responsibility on pedestrians to be bike aware. It's very easy for a pedestrian to blindly side step into the path of a cyclist resulting in injury to both. Attributing automatically all blame on the cyclist in any collision is unfair if the cyclist is cycling resposibly, after all, the cyclist has further to fall.The-Bleeding-Obvious

cest vrai wrote…

High Treason wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.

But that's the point it is no longer a pedestrian area for the trial period so all will need to take some responsibility. And for those that bleat on about insurance etc how many pedestrians are specifically insured for pounding the streets.

It needs to be on equal terms i.e. pedestrians and cyclists should have equal right of way. A cyclist has to look where he is going, pedestrians tend to wander aimlessly, there must be an element of responsibility on pedestrians to be bike aware. It's very easy for a pedestrian to blindly side step into the path of a cyclist resulting in injury to both. Attributing automatically all blame on the cyclist in any collision is unfair if the cyclist is cycling resposibly, after all, the cyclist has further to fall.

Score: 8

Sir Beachy Head says...10:44am Sat 26 Apr 14

An umbrella into the spokes slows them up

An umbrella into the spokes slows them upSir Beachy Head

An umbrella into the spokes slows them up

Score: -4

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...10:48am Sat 26 Apr 14

Sir Beachy Head wrote…

An umbrella into the spokes slows them up

That's the equivalent of throwing stones at cars!

[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote:
An umbrella into the spokes slows them up[/p][/quote]That's the equivalent of throwing stones at cars!The-Bleeding-Obvious

Sir Beachy Head wrote…

An umbrella into the spokes slows them up

That's the equivalent of throwing stones at cars!

Score: 18

BackOfTheNet says...10:50am Sat 26 Apr 14

What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day. The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do. Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.

What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day.
The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do.
Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.BackOfTheNet

What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day. The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do. Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.

Score: 28

tbpoole says...10:54am Sat 26 Apr 14

High Treason wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.

No they won't. Cyclists (and drivers) are responsible for their own actions, no-one else.

[quote][p][bold]High Treason[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Graham Rees[/bold] wrote:
I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix![/p][/quote]But the mix is safer than car and cyclist![/p][/quote]When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.[/p][/quote]No they won't. Cyclists (and drivers) are responsible for their own actions, no-one else.tbpoole

High Treason wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

When a someone gets severely injured or even killed by a cyclist in a pedestrian area will those that allowed this to happen be held responsible.

No they won't. Cyclists (and drivers) are responsible for their own actions, no-one else.

Score: 8

tbpoole says...10:57am Sat 26 Apr 14

Valerie W. wrote…

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.

Look they've been doing it in most continental cities for years. Why should we be any different?

[quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote:
This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.[/p][/quote]Look they've been doing it in most continental cities for years. Why should we be any different?tbpoole

Valerie W. wrote…

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.

Look they've been doing it in most continental cities for years. Why should we be any different?

Score: 10

Marty Caine UKIP says...10:58am Sat 26 Apr 14

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.Marty Caine UKIP

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Score: -4

cest vrai says...10:58am Sat 26 Apr 14

BackOfTheNet wrote…

What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day. The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do. Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.

Agree wait till next week in London. Tube strike. Will be carnage with the extra traffic. A vision of the future

[quote][p][bold]BackOfTheNet[/bold] wrote:
What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day.
The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do.
Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.[/p][/quote]Agree wait till next week in London. Tube strike. Will be carnage with the extra traffic. A vision of the futurecest vrai

BackOfTheNet wrote…

What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day. The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do. Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.

Agree wait till next week in London. Tube strike. Will be carnage with the extra traffic. A vision of the future

Score: 10

cest vrai says...11:05am Sat 26 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.cest vrai

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.

Look they've been doing it in most continental cities for years. Why should we be any different?

No, not this idiotic sharing system. I lived on the continent for 20 years and in most places there, cyclists have their own space. Pedestrians on the pavement, motor vehicles on the road and cycles either in clearly marked sections of the pavement (i.e. not swerving in and out of pedestrians) or on properly-constructed cycle routes. Things are kept apart and that's what works. The difference here is that they don't want to put any money into it and it is no 'vision of the future', merely abnegation of responsibility by the authorities.

[quote][p][bold]tbpoole[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Valerie W.[/bold] wrote:
This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.[/p][/quote]Look they've been doing it in most continental cities for years. Why should we be any different?[/p][/quote]No, not this idiotic sharing system. I lived on the continent for 20 years and in most places there, cyclists have their own space. Pedestrians on the pavement, motor vehicles on the road and cycles either in clearly marked sections of the pavement (i.e. not swerving in and out of pedestrians) or on properly-constructed cycle routes. Things are kept apart and that's what works. The difference here is that they don't want to put any money into it and it is no 'vision of the future', merely abnegation of responsibility by the authorities.Valerie W.

tbpoole wrote…

Valerie W. wrote…

This is one of those decisions baffled generations will look back on in future years and wonder how it could have happened.

Look they've been doing it in most continental cities for years. Why should we be any different?

No, not this idiotic sharing system. I lived on the continent for 20 years and in most places there, cyclists have their own space. Pedestrians on the pavement, motor vehicles on the road and cycles either in clearly marked sections of the pavement (i.e. not swerving in and out of pedestrians) or on properly-constructed cycle routes. Things are kept apart and that's what works. The difference here is that they don't want to put any money into it and it is no 'vision of the future', merely abnegation of responsibility by the authorities.

Score: 13

Ralph Horris says...11:09am Sat 26 Apr 14

After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.

After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.Ralph Horris

After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.

Score: 14

cest vrai says...11:15am Sat 26 Apr 14

Ralph Horris wrote…

After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.

Priceless. Lmao. Can just imagine you in a darkened room fervently pushing your browser refresh button on the Echo news site waiting for the first report of a cycling related incident so you can scream "told ya so". Priceless

[quote][p][bold]Ralph Horris[/bold] wrote:
After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.[/p][/quote]Priceless. Lmao. Can just imagine you in a darkened room fervently pushing your browser refresh button on the Echo news site waiting for the first report of a cycling related incident so you can scream "told ya so". Pricelesscest vrai

Ralph Horris wrote…

After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.

Priceless. Lmao. Can just imagine you in a darkened room fervently pushing your browser refresh button on the Echo news site waiting for the first report of a cycling related incident so you can scream "told ya so". Priceless

Score: 4

pete woodley says...11:22am Sat 26 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Careful marty ,my comment about griitt was soon reemoved

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Careful marty ,my comment about griitt was soon reemovedpete woodley

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Careful marty ,my comment about griitt was soon reemoved

Score: 5

muscliffman says...11:43am Sat 26 Apr 14

I am making a point and not offering an opinion but this will mean that central Bournemouth can no longer be referred to as 'pedestrianised' - because with this ruling quite simply, it's not!

I am making a point and not offering an opinion but this will mean that central Bournemouth can no longer be referred to as 'pedestrianised' - because with this ruling quite simply, it's not!muscliffman

I am making a point and not offering an opinion but this will mean that central Bournemouth can no longer be referred to as 'pedestrianised' - because with this ruling quite simply, it's not!

Score: 11

madras says...11:44am Sat 26 Apr 14

I'd put money on it proving devisive...

I'd put money on it proving devisive...madras

I'd put money on it proving devisive...

Score: 5

cest vrai says...11:54am Sat 26 Apr 14

muscliffman wrote…

I am making a point and not offering an opinion but this will mean that central Bournemouth can no longer be referred to as 'pedestrianised' - because with this ruling quite simply, it's not!

Car free zone had a nice ring to it.

[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote:
I am making a point and not offering an opinion but this will mean that central Bournemouth can no longer be referred to as 'pedestrianised' - because with this ruling quite simply, it's not![/p][/quote]Car free zone had a nice ring to it.cest vrai

muscliffman wrote…

I am making a point and not offering an opinion but this will mean that central Bournemouth can no longer be referred to as 'pedestrianised' - because with this ruling quite simply, it's not!

Car free zone had a nice ring to it.

Score: 12

Marty Caine UKIP says...12:10pm Sat 26 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.Marty Caine UKIP

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Score: 9

justanoldie says...12:30pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Let's see some unedited "before and after" overhead street video footage to see the effect on the general public, say a couple of weeksworth on the website. Positive avoiding action is always needed when trying to dodge the child cyclist. Us oaps should watchout!

Let's see some unedited "before and after" overhead street video footage to see the effect on the general public, say a couple of weeksworth on the website. Positive avoiding action is always needed when trying to dodge the child cyclist. Us oaps should watchout!justanoldie

Let's see some unedited "before and after" overhead street video footage to see the effect on the general public, say a couple of weeksworth on the website. Positive avoiding action is always needed when trying to dodge the child cyclist. Us oaps should watchout!

Score: 5

BmthNewshound says...12:56pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Sounds like yet another headline grabber from Bournemouth Council which once scrutinised may not seem like such a good idea after all. . As is often the case Councillors have not considered the impact or precedent this new policy sets. A lot of cyclists already ignore no cycling signs and treat pedestrians with the same contempt that they accuse motorists of displaying toward them. Cyclists have become a very vocal and militant minority and it seems the Councils response to their pressure is to cobble together half baked schemes. . I think that Bournemouth Council needs to consult with organisations like Sustrans who have the expertise to help them develop a properly planned and implemented policy which makes the town safer for cyclists without compromising the safety of pedestrians and causing unnecessary inconvenience to other road users.

Sounds like yet another headline grabber from Bournemouth Council which once scrutinised may not seem like such a good idea after all.
.
As is often the case Councillors have not considered the impact or precedent this new policy sets. A lot of cyclists already ignore no cycling signs and treat pedestrians with the same contempt that they accuse motorists of displaying toward them. Cyclists have become a very vocal and militant minority and it seems the Councils response to their pressure is to cobble together half baked schemes.
.
I think that Bournemouth Council needs to consult with organisations like Sustrans who have the expertise to help them develop a properly planned and implemented policy which makes the town safer for cyclists without compromising the safety of pedestrians and causing unnecessary inconvenience to other road users.BmthNewshound

Sounds like yet another headline grabber from Bournemouth Council which once scrutinised may not seem like such a good idea after all. . As is often the case Councillors have not considered the impact or precedent this new policy sets. A lot of cyclists already ignore no cycling signs and treat pedestrians with the same contempt that they accuse motorists of displaying toward them. Cyclists have become a very vocal and militant minority and it seems the Councils response to their pressure is to cobble together half baked schemes. . I think that Bournemouth Council needs to consult with organisations like Sustrans who have the expertise to help them develop a properly planned and implemented policy which makes the town safer for cyclists without compromising the safety of pedestrians and causing unnecessary inconvenience to other road users.

Score: 10

pete woodley says...12:57pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.pete woodley

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.

Score: 5

blackdog1 says...1:05pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Stupid idea by this cycle obsessed council! Dodging bikes on the prom and now dodging them in the town centre,brilliant!, welcome to Bmth ....bring your family ..stroll round the shops......get knocked over...see Bmth hospital!.......

Stupid idea by this cycle obsessed council! Dodging bikes on the prom and now dodging them in the town centre,brilliant!, welcome to Bmth ....bring your family ..stroll round the shops......get knocked over...see Bmth hospital!.......blackdog1

Stupid idea by this cycle obsessed council! Dodging bikes on the prom and now dodging them in the town centre,brilliant!, welcome to Bmth ....bring your family ..stroll round the shops......get knocked over...see Bmth hospital!.......

Score: -9

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...1:11pm Sat 26 Apr 14

pete woodley wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.

The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.

[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.[/p][/quote]The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.The-Bleeding-Obvious

pete woodley wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.

The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.

Score: 6

cest vrai says...1:20pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners.
Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. Xcest vrai

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Score: 2

M0Z says...1:38pm Sat 26 Apr 14

The only reason a cyclist needs to traverse The Square is to get between Bourne Avenue, Gervis Place and Richmond Hill (Old Christchurch Road and Commercial Road have parallel routes). None of those three crossings is more than 50 metres long - it’s hardly an onerous walk for anyone capable of cycling. I’ve personally never had a problem to simply dismount and push. This initiative is unnecessary and will be costly to implement (signage alone). Also, if anyone is injured by someone cycling dangerously today (in the No Cycling zone), it is fairly clear where the blame lies. I fear that opening it up for a free-for-all will make it harder for the police to act, or for the victims to prove blame and obtain damages. There’s bound to be an increase in dangerous cycling and accidents. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of responsible cycling – I used to be a member of the CTC and carry cyclist’s insurance. It’s just that this scheme seems to have far too much pedestrian risk and implementation cost to warrant the saving of a mere 50 metre walk. How on earth did this get to the top of the council’s ‘to-do’ list?

The only reason a cyclist needs to traverse The Square is to get between Bourne Avenue, Gervis Place and Richmond Hill (Old Christchurch Road and Commercial Road have parallel routes). None of those three crossings is more than 50 metres long - it’s hardly an onerous walk for anyone capable of cycling. I’ve personally never had a problem to simply dismount and push.
This initiative is unnecessary and will be costly to implement (signage alone). Also, if anyone is injured by someone cycling dangerously today (in the No Cycling zone), it is fairly clear where the blame lies. I fear that opening it up for a free-for-all will make it harder for the police to act, or for the victims to prove blame and obtain damages. There’s bound to be an increase in dangerous cycling and accidents.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of responsible cycling – I used to be a member of the CTC and carry cyclist’s insurance. It’s just that this scheme seems to have far too much pedestrian risk and implementation cost to warrant the saving of a mere 50 metre walk. How on earth did this get to the top of the council’s ‘to-do’ list?M0Z

The only reason a cyclist needs to traverse The Square is to get between Bourne Avenue, Gervis Place and Richmond Hill (Old Christchurch Road and Commercial Road have parallel routes). None of those three crossings is more than 50 metres long - it’s hardly an onerous walk for anyone capable of cycling. I’ve personally never had a problem to simply dismount and push. This initiative is unnecessary and will be costly to implement (signage alone). Also, if anyone is injured by someone cycling dangerously today (in the No Cycling zone), it is fairly clear where the blame lies. I fear that opening it up for a free-for-all will make it harder for the police to act, or for the victims to prove blame and obtain damages. There’s bound to be an increase in dangerous cycling and accidents. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of responsible cycling – I used to be a member of the CTC and carry cyclist’s insurance. It’s just that this scheme seems to have far too much pedestrian risk and implementation cost to warrant the saving of a mere 50 metre walk. How on earth did this get to the top of the council’s ‘to-do’ list?

Score: 11

southbourne lover says...1:42pm Sat 26 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners.
Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.southbourne lover

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

Score: 12

retry69 says...1:50pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)retry69

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)

Score: 4

richardcompton3 says...1:53pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

[quote][p][bold]Self-Righteous Mother[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade.
Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.[/p][/quote]For Richard and the CLLRs
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW
pY#t=454
Website: http://www.aviewfrom
thecyclepath.com/201
3/07/an-invitation-t
o-boris-johnson-to-c
ity.html
If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website.
And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change.
Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.[/p][/quote]Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!richardcompton3

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

Score: -7

cest vrai says...1:54pm Sat 26 Apr 14

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them. How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.

[quote][p][bold]southbourne lover[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners.
Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.[/p][/quote]So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them.
How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many
Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.cest vrai

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them. How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.

Score: 3

retry69 says...2:18pm Sat 26 Apr 14

richardcompton3 wrote…

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

When was that then?

[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Self-Righteous Mother[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade.
Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.[/p][/quote]For Richard and the CLLRs
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW
pY#t=454
Website: http://www.aviewfrom
thecyclepath.com/201
3/07/an-invitation-t
o-boris-johnson-to-c
ity.html
If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website.
And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change.
Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.[/p][/quote]Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix![/p][/quote]When was that then?retry69

richardcompton3 wrote…

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

When was that then?

Score: 4

Chriswood says...2:44pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Ron is the only councillor who speaks any sense, as usual. No party line to toe I suppose.

Ron is the only councillor who speaks any sense, as usual. No party line to toe I suppose.Chriswood

Ron is the only councillor who speaks any sense, as usual. No party line to toe I suppose.

Score: 3

Turtlebay says...3:27pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Cyclists are pedestrians on wheels. I appreciate that they use a bicycle to travel larger distances more quickly than walking. When they enter a zone where there are more pedestrians including elderly, children and normally fit adults they should dismount and push their bicycles. Why do they need to cycle amongst pedestrians?

Cyclists are pedestrians on wheels.
I appreciate that they use a bicycle to travel larger distances more quickly than walking.
When they enter a zone where there are more pedestrians including elderly, children and normally fit adults they should dismount and push their bicycles.
Why do they need to cycle amongst pedestrians?Turtlebay

Cyclists are pedestrians on wheels. I appreciate that they use a bicycle to travel larger distances more quickly than walking. When they enter a zone where there are more pedestrians including elderly, children and normally fit adults they should dismount and push their bicycles. Why do they need to cycle amongst pedestrians?

Score: 8

mchphoto says...3:39pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 . A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area. Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible. Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .

Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 .
A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area.
Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible.
Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .mchphoto

Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 . A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area. Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible. Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .

Score: -3

cest vrai says...3:55pm Sat 26 Apr 14

mchphoto wrote…

Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 . A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area. Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible. Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .

Pavement. A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road. By this definition the square is not a pavement hence them legality of who can do what on if will be down to the owner ie the council.

[quote][p][bold]mchphoto[/bold] wrote:
Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 .
A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area.
Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible.
Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .[/p][/quote]Pavement. A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road. By this definition the square is not a pavement hence them legality of who can do what on if will be down to the owner ie the council.cest vrai

mchphoto wrote…

Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 . A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area. Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible. Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .

Pavement. A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road. By this definition the square is not a pavement hence them legality of who can do what on if will be down to the owner ie the council.

Score: 5

Lord Spring says...4:01pm Sat 26 Apr 14

retry69 wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

When was that then?

Can I remain neutral for change I wish to take The 5th Admendment .

[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Self-Righteous Mother[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade.
Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.[/p][/quote]For Richard and the CLLRs
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW
pY#t=454
Website: http://www.aviewfrom
thecyclepath.com/201
3/07/an-invitation-t
o-boris-johnson-to-c
ity.html
If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website.
And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change.
Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.[/p][/quote]Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix![/p][/quote]When was that then?[/p][/quote]Can I remain neutral for change I wish to take The 5th Admendment .Lord Spring

retry69 wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

When was that then?

Can I remain neutral for change I wish to take The 5th Admendment .

Score: 0

Tango Charlie says...4:09pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Make cycling lanes.. It is very simple. Go to Amterdam and have a look.

Make cycling lanes.. It is very simple. Go to Amterdam and have a look.Tango Charlie

Make cycling lanes.. It is very simple. Go to Amterdam and have a look.

Score: 4

Tango Charlie says...4:10pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Sorry for the Typo

Sorry for the TypoTango Charlie

Sorry for the Typo

Score: 0

tbpoole says...4:19pm Sat 26 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

mchphoto wrote…

Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 . A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area. Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible. Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .

Pavement. A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road. By this definition the square is not a pavement hence them legality of who can do what on if will be down to the owner ie the council.

It's true. Pedestrianised areas are typically covered by Council by laws and not the highways act.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mchphoto[/bold] wrote:
Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 .
A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area.
Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible.
Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .[/p][/quote]Pavement. A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road. By this definition the square is not a pavement hence them legality of who can do what on if will be down to the owner ie the council.[/p][/quote]It's true. Pedestrianised areas are typically covered by Council by laws and not the highways act.tbpoole

cest vrai wrote…

mchphoto wrote…

Well I thought what about the law and cycling on pavements was illegal, this is not a new law as it was passed around 1865 . A lot of cyclist do not know it is illegal and you can be fined by the police for it. If this actually goes ahead is may give cyclists the idea that they can actually ride on the pavements elsewhere in the area. Would the police like to comment on it's legality regarding the cycling on the pavements and pedestrian area's, as I do not want to walk around the square jumping out of the way of various cyclist trying to cross the area. As the bikes do not have registration plates and they hit someone and not stop to see if they are ok, before you know it the cyclists will have disappeared into the distance and you have an injured person on the floor, hopefully the CCTV will be able to find that person responsible. Please no cyclists in the pedestrian areas of Bournemouth or elsewhere .

Pavement. A raised paved or asphalted path for pedestrians at the side of a road. By this definition the square is not a pavement hence them legality of who can do what on if will be down to the owner ie the council.

It's true. Pedestrianised areas are typically covered by Council by laws and not the highways act.

Score: 6

Boscomite says...4:25pm Sat 26 Apr 14

arthur1948 wrote…

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything?? what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?.... this council really does take the biscuit....

The visually impaired and hard of hearing should be made to walk in the road. Cars a lot easier to see and hear than bicycles.

[quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote:
pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything??
what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?....
this council really does take the biscuit....[/p][/quote]The visually impaired and hard of hearing should be made to walk in the road. Cars a lot easier to see and hear than bicycles.Boscomite

arthur1948 wrote…

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything?? what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?.... this council really does take the biscuit....

The visually impaired and hard of hearing should be made to walk in the road. Cars a lot easier to see and hear than bicycles.

Score: 1

Boscomite says...4:26pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Just for the benefit of the hard of thinking, that last comment was meant as a joke.

Just for the benefit of the hard of thinking, that last comment was meant as a joke.Boscomite

Just for the benefit of the hard of thinking, that last comment was meant as a joke.

Score: 2

KLH says...4:30pm Sat 26 Apr 14

There are a lot of considerate, sensible cyclists around. There are also a lot of d***heads about, the latter spoiling it for the former. The majority of bad cyclists in my opinion are young blokes who think they own everything and everything is theirs to do as they like. The odd woman, but the offenders are almost always blokes.

There are a lot of considerate, sensible cyclists around. There are also a lot of d***heads about, the latter spoiling it for the former. The majority of bad cyclists in my opinion are young blokes who think they own everything and everything is theirs to do as they like. The odd woman, but the offenders are almost always blokes.KLH

There are a lot of considerate, sensible cyclists around. There are also a lot of d***heads about, the latter spoiling it for the former. The majority of bad cyclists in my opinion are young blokes who think they own everything and everything is theirs to do as they like. The odd woman, but the offenders are almost always blokes.

Score: 4

breamoreboy says...5:01pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Sir Beachy Head wrote…

An umbrella into the spokes slows them up

If I insert my umbrella you'll be slowed up, and you'll also find it extremely difficult to sit down, although it should help to clear your voice a little bit.

[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote:
An umbrella into the spokes slows them up[/p][/quote]If I insert my umbrella you'll be slowed up, and you'll also find it extremely difficult to sit down, although it should help to clear your voice a little bit.breamoreboy

Sir Beachy Head wrote…

An umbrella into the spokes slows them up

If I insert my umbrella you'll be slowed up, and you'll also find it extremely difficult to sit down, although it should help to clear your voice a little bit.

Score: -2

mikey2gorgeous says...5:03pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.mikey2gorgeous

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.

Score: 8

breamoreboy says...5:06pm Sat 26 Apr 14

BackOfTheNet wrote…

What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day. The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do. Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.

Sadly this won't work. As I said a few days ago, drivers would rather sit in long queues than use other forms of transport. Admittedly with a complete lack of an (sorry for the shouting) INTEGRATED TRANSPORT SYSTEM what do you do? Also given the ludicrous anti-cycling feeling that pervades the UK in general and seemingly Bournemouth in particular, looks as if we're stuck with things the way they are for years to come.

[quote][p][bold]BackOfTheNet[/bold] wrote:
What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day.
The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do.
Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.[/p][/quote]Sadly this won't work. As I said a few days ago, drivers would rather sit in long queues than use other forms of transport. Admittedly with a complete lack of an (sorry for the shouting) INTEGRATED TRANSPORT SYSTEM what do you do? Also given the ludicrous anti-cycling feeling that pervades the UK in general and seemingly Bournemouth in particular, looks as if we're stuck with things the way they are for years to come.breamoreboy

BackOfTheNet wrote…

What this country really needs is a National Everyone Drive to Work Day. The rush hour will last the whole day and many selfish drivers would see what it would be like if everyone thought as little of others as they do. Every single cyclist, pedestrian, bus or train passenger is making the roads clearer by not driving everywhere.

Sadly this won't work. As I said a few days ago, drivers would rather sit in long queues than use other forms of transport. Admittedly with a complete lack of an (sorry for the shouting) INTEGRATED TRANSPORT SYSTEM what do you do? Also given the ludicrous anti-cycling feeling that pervades the UK in general and seemingly Bournemouth in particular, looks as if we're stuck with things the way they are for years to come.

Score: 3

retry69 says...5:07pm Sat 26 Apr 14

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.

Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)

[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.[/p][/quote]Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)retry69

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.

Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)

Score: 3

mikey2gorgeous says...5:10pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.mikey2gorgeous

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.

Score: 7

breamoreboy says...5:11pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Maybe a 200 year old act should be thrown away and replaced with something which reflects that we've now in the 21st century

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Maybe a 200 year old act should be thrown away and replaced with something which reflects that we've now in the 21st centurybreamoreboy

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Maybe a 200 year old act should be thrown away and replaced with something which reflects that we've now in the 21st century

Score: 0

breamoreboy says...5:18pm Sat 26 Apr 14

BmthNewshound wrote…

Sounds like yet another headline grabber from Bournemouth Council which once scrutinised may not seem like such a good idea after all. . As is often the case Councillors have not considered the impact or precedent this new policy sets. A lot of cyclists already ignore no cycling signs and treat pedestrians with the same contempt that they accuse motorists of displaying toward them. Cyclists have become a very vocal and militant minority and it seems the Councils response to their pressure is to cobble together half baked schemes. . I think that Bournemouth Council needs to consult with organisations like Sustrans who have the expertise to help them develop a properly planned and implemented policy which makes the town safer for cyclists without compromising the safety of pedestrians and causing unnecessary inconvenience to other road users.

I'm starting to get quite upset now. That's several comments I've read on this thread that smack of common sense. I can't be on the Bournemouth Echo website, can I?

[quote][p][bold]BmthNewshound[/bold] wrote:
Sounds like yet another headline grabber from Bournemouth Council which once scrutinised may not seem like such a good idea after all.
.
As is often the case Councillors have not considered the impact or precedent this new policy sets. A lot of cyclists already ignore no cycling signs and treat pedestrians with the same contempt that they accuse motorists of displaying toward them. Cyclists have become a very vocal and militant minority and it seems the Councils response to their pressure is to cobble together half baked schemes.
.
I think that Bournemouth Council needs to consult with organisations like Sustrans who have the expertise to help them develop a properly planned and implemented policy which makes the town safer for cyclists without compromising the safety of pedestrians and causing unnecessary inconvenience to other road users.[/p][/quote]I'm starting to get quite upset now. That's several comments I've read on this thread that smack of common sense. I can't be on the Bournemouth Echo website, can I?breamoreboy

BmthNewshound wrote…

Sounds like yet another headline grabber from Bournemouth Council which once scrutinised may not seem like such a good idea after all. . As is often the case Councillors have not considered the impact or precedent this new policy sets. A lot of cyclists already ignore no cycling signs and treat pedestrians with the same contempt that they accuse motorists of displaying toward them. Cyclists have become a very vocal and militant minority and it seems the Councils response to their pressure is to cobble together half baked schemes. . I think that Bournemouth Council needs to consult with organisations like Sustrans who have the expertise to help them develop a properly planned and implemented policy which makes the town safer for cyclists without compromising the safety of pedestrians and causing unnecessary inconvenience to other road users.

I'm starting to get quite upset now. That's several comments I've read on this thread that smack of common sense. I can't be on the Bournemouth Echo website, can I?

Score: 0

southbourne lover says...5:20pm Sat 26 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them. How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.

Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southbourne lover[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners.
Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.[/p][/quote]So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them.
How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many
Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.[/p][/quote]Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.southbourne lover

cest vrai wrote…

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them. How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.

Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.

Score: 0

breamoreboy says...5:24pm Sat 26 Apr 14

richardcompton3 wrote…

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

I don't remember that. I do remember this "An elderly man sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a cyclist in Boscombe today. The incident, in which a 77-year-old Bournemouth pensioner was pushed to the floor by a male cyclist, happened outside the George Fry electrical store on the corner of Christchurch Road and Parkwood Road just after 9am."

[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Self-Righteous Mother[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade.
Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.[/p][/quote]For Richard and the CLLRs
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW
pY#t=454
Website: http://www.aviewfrom
thecyclepath.com/201
3/07/an-invitation-t
o-boris-johnson-to-c
ity.html
If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website.
And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change.
Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.[/p][/quote]Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix![/p][/quote]I don't remember that. I do remember this "An elderly man sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a cyclist in Boscombe today. The incident, in which a 77-year-old Bournemouth pensioner was pushed to the floor by a male cyclist, happened outside the George Fry electrical store on the corner of Christchurch Road and Parkwood Road just after 9am."breamoreboy

richardcompton3 wrote…

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

I don't remember that. I do remember this "An elderly man sustained a broken hip after being attacked by a cyclist in Boscombe today. The incident, in which a 77-year-old Bournemouth pensioner was pushed to the floor by a male cyclist, happened outside the George Fry electrical store on the corner of Christchurch Road and Parkwood Road just after 9am."

Score: 0

Vikki27 says...5:27pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Reading through some of the comments, I feel a little keen to argue a point in the defence of cyclists...why do so many people assume cyclists are all selfish, irresponsible and ignorant??! The assumption that nobody is looking after the visually impaired or the surrounding pedestrians is based in a suggestion that cyclists will never take care to avoid others! Do you really think cyclists will deliberately get in the way of/make a beeline for other people??? If so, you've clearly never been on a bike yourself! I have so far never come across a cyclist who has hit a pedestrian, or even come close. Yes, there was ONE recent incident where a cyclist hit a pedestrian and seriously hurt them. It's terrible. But why does nobody mention how terrible the cyclist must have felt about that?? It was an accident, not a malicious attack. We have to stop seeing cyclists as hostile, ignorant, rude people, and start seeing them for who they are - a person like you and I, who just happens to be riding a bike. There will always be exceptions where people will behave irresponsibly, but the same is true of drivers. Do you ban all cars for the few who will only ever drive badly?? Of course not!

Reading through some of the comments, I feel a little keen to argue a point in the defence of cyclists...why do so many people assume cyclists are all selfish, irresponsible and ignorant??! The assumption that nobody is looking after the visually impaired or the surrounding pedestrians is based in a suggestion that cyclists will never take care to avoid others! Do you really think cyclists will deliberately get in the way of/make a beeline for other people??? If so, you've clearly never been on a bike yourself!
I have so far never come across a cyclist who has hit a pedestrian, or even come close. Yes, there was ONE recent incident where a cyclist hit a pedestrian and seriously hurt them. It's terrible. But why does nobody mention how terrible the cyclist must have felt about that?? It was an accident, not a malicious attack.
We have to stop seeing cyclists as hostile, ignorant, rude people, and start seeing them for who they are - a person like you and I, who just happens to be riding a bike. There will always be exceptions where people will behave irresponsibly, but the same is true of drivers. Do you ban all cars for the few who will only ever drive badly?? Of course not!Vikki27

Reading through some of the comments, I feel a little keen to argue a point in the defence of cyclists...why do so many people assume cyclists are all selfish, irresponsible and ignorant??! The assumption that nobody is looking after the visually impaired or the surrounding pedestrians is based in a suggestion that cyclists will never take care to avoid others! Do you really think cyclists will deliberately get in the way of/make a beeline for other people??? If so, you've clearly never been on a bike yourself! I have so far never come across a cyclist who has hit a pedestrian, or even come close. Yes, there was ONE recent incident where a cyclist hit a pedestrian and seriously hurt them. It's terrible. But why does nobody mention how terrible the cyclist must have felt about that?? It was an accident, not a malicious attack. We have to stop seeing cyclists as hostile, ignorant, rude people, and start seeing them for who they are - a person like you and I, who just happens to be riding a bike. There will always be exceptions where people will behave irresponsibly, but the same is true of drivers. Do you ban all cars for the few who will only ever drive badly?? Of course not!

Score: 7

breamoreboy says...5:29pm Sat 26 Apr 14

retry69 wrote…

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.

Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)

Apologies for going off topic but I prefer duckduckgo as they promise not to track you.

[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.[/p][/quote]Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)[/p][/quote]Apologies for going off topic but I prefer duckduckgo as they promise not to track you.breamoreboy

retry69 wrote…

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.

Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)

Apologies for going off topic but I prefer duckduckgo as they promise not to track you.

Score: -1

southbourne lover says...5:55pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Vikki27 wrote…

Reading through some of the comments, I feel a little keen to argue a point in the defence of cyclists...why do so many people assume cyclists are all selfish, irresponsible and ignorant??! The assumption that nobody is looking after the visually impaired or the surrounding pedestrians is based in a suggestion that cyclists will never take care to avoid others! Do you really think cyclists will deliberately get in the way of/make a beeline for other people??? If so, you've clearly never been on a bike yourself! I have so far never come across a cyclist who has hit a pedestrian, or even come close. Yes, there was ONE recent incident where a cyclist hit a pedestrian and seriously hurt them. It's terrible. But why does nobody mention how terrible the cyclist must have felt about that?? It was an accident, not a malicious attack. We have to stop seeing cyclists as hostile, ignorant, rude people, and start seeing them for who they are - a person like you and I, who just happens to be riding a bike. There will always be exceptions where people will behave irresponsibly, but the same is true of drivers. Do you ban all cars for the few who will only ever drive badly?? Of course not!

If the cyclist had felt that bad he would have stopped to help.

[quote][p][bold]Vikki27[/bold] wrote:
Reading through some of the comments, I feel a little keen to argue a point in the defence of cyclists...why do so many people assume cyclists are all selfish, irresponsible and ignorant??! The assumption that nobody is looking after the visually impaired or the surrounding pedestrians is based in a suggestion that cyclists will never take care to avoid others! Do you really think cyclists will deliberately get in the way of/make a beeline for other people??? If so, you've clearly never been on a bike yourself!
I have so far never come across a cyclist who has hit a pedestrian, or even come close. Yes, there was ONE recent incident where a cyclist hit a pedestrian and seriously hurt them. It's terrible. But why does nobody mention how terrible the cyclist must have felt about that?? It was an accident, not a malicious attack.
We have to stop seeing cyclists as hostile, ignorant, rude people, and start seeing them for who they are - a person like you and I, who just happens to be riding a bike. There will always be exceptions where people will behave irresponsibly, but the same is true of drivers. Do you ban all cars for the few who will only ever drive badly?? Of course not![/p][/quote]If the cyclist had felt that bad he would have stopped to help.southbourne lover

Vikki27 wrote…

Reading through some of the comments, I feel a little keen to argue a point in the defence of cyclists...why do so many people assume cyclists are all selfish, irresponsible and ignorant??! The assumption that nobody is looking after the visually impaired or the surrounding pedestrians is based in a suggestion that cyclists will never take care to avoid others! Do you really think cyclists will deliberately get in the way of/make a beeline for other people??? If so, you've clearly never been on a bike yourself! I have so far never come across a cyclist who has hit a pedestrian, or even come close. Yes, there was ONE recent incident where a cyclist hit a pedestrian and seriously hurt them. It's terrible. But why does nobody mention how terrible the cyclist must have felt about that?? It was an accident, not a malicious attack. We have to stop seeing cyclists as hostile, ignorant, rude people, and start seeing them for who they are - a person like you and I, who just happens to be riding a bike. There will always be exceptions where people will behave irresponsibly, but the same is true of drivers. Do you ban all cars for the few who will only ever drive badly?? Of course not!

If the cyclist had felt that bad he would have stopped to help.

Score: 0

retry69 says...6:06pm Sat 26 Apr 14

breamoreboy wrote…

retry69 wrote…

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.

Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)

Apologies for going off topic but I prefer duckduckgo as they promise not to track you.

No don't apologise as you know it is usually more interesting when people go off topic as in this case,also I was unaware of duckduckgo until now so thanks for that lol :)

[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.[/p][/quote]Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)[/p][/quote]Apologies for going off topic but I prefer duckduckgo as they promise not to track you.[/p][/quote]No don't apologise as you know it is usually more interesting when people go off topic as in this case,also I was unaware of duckduckgo until now so thanks for that lol :)retry69

breamoreboy wrote…

retry69 wrote…

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Perhaps you should learn something about how local traffic laws are regulated before you spout off? You seem to have a lot of opinions on things you know little about.

Don't be harsh,he just forgot to google first :)

Apologies for going off topic but I prefer duckduckgo as they promise not to track you.

No don't apologise as you know it is usually more interesting when people go off topic as in this case,also I was unaware of duckduckgo until now so thanks for that lol :)

Score: 0

Sir Beachy Head says...6:10pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Will tricycles be allowed to use the new routes ? What about transvestites on Penny Farthings ?

Will tricycles be allowed to use the new routes ? What about transvestites on Penny Farthings ?Sir Beachy Head

Will tricycles be allowed to use the new routes ? What about transvestites on Penny Farthings ?

Score: -5

retry69 says...6:12pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Boscomite wrote…

arthur1948 wrote…

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything?? what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?.... this council really does take the biscuit....

The visually impaired and hard of hearing should be made to walk in the road. Cars a lot easier to see and hear than bicycles.

As I have no natural hearing and find identifying sounds extremely difficult I find your attitude and comment utterly hilarious :)

[quote][p][bold]Boscomite[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote:
pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything??
what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?....
this council really does take the biscuit....[/p][/quote]The visually impaired and hard of hearing should be made to walk in the road. Cars a lot easier to see and hear than bicycles.[/p][/quote]As I have no natural hearing and find identifying sounds extremely difficult I find your attitude and comment utterly hilarious :)retry69

Boscomite wrote…

arthur1948 wrote…

pedestrians dont matter any more....havent recent events in boscombe meant anything?? what about the visually impaired? dont they count? and the hard of hearing?.... this council really does take the biscuit....

The visually impaired and hard of hearing should be made to walk in the road. Cars a lot easier to see and hear than bicycles.

As I have no natural hearing and find identifying sounds extremely difficult I find your attitude and comment utterly hilarious :)

Score: 6

tuftyno1 says...6:26pm Sat 26 Apr 14

As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it!

As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it!tuftyno1

As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it!

Score: 3

ashleycross says...6:34pm Sat 26 Apr 14

We need to close most roads in Poole and Bournemouth to cars except for access. This will make them safe for bikes.

We need to close most roads in Poole and Bournemouth to cars except for access. This will make them safe for bikes.ashleycross

We need to close most roads in Poole and Bournemouth to cars except for access. This will make them safe for bikes.

Score: 5

scrumpyjack says...6:39pm Sat 26 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

Ralph Horris wrote…

After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.

Priceless. Lmao. Can just imagine you in a darkened room fervently pushing your browser refresh button on the Echo news site waiting for the first report of a cycling related incident so you can scream "told ya so". Priceless

There's lot more like him, thrown in with a vastly over done smattering of drama queens.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ralph Horris[/bold] wrote:
After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.[/p][/quote]Priceless. Lmao. Can just imagine you in a darkened room fervently pushing your browser refresh button on the Echo news site waiting for the first report of a cycling related incident so you can scream "told ya so". Priceless[/p][/quote]There's lot more like him, thrown in with a vastly over done smattering of drama queens.scrumpyjack

cest vrai wrote…

Ralph Horris wrote…

After a few days there will be so many dead and dying pedestrians littering the pavements cyclists will be forced back onto the road anyway.

Priceless. Lmao. Can just imagine you in a darkened room fervently pushing your browser refresh button on the Echo news site waiting for the first report of a cycling related incident so you can scream "told ya so". Priceless

There's lot more like him, thrown in with a vastly over done smattering of drama queens.

Score: 7

cest vrai says...6:46pm Sat 26 Apr 14

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them. How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.

Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.

Lol. A real regular then!!!!

[quote][p][bold]southbourne lover[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southbourne lover[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners.
Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.[/p][/quote]So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them.
How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many
Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.[/p][/quote]Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.[/p][/quote]Lol. A real regular then!!!!cest vrai

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them. How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.

Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.

Lol. A real regular then!!!!

Score: 3

scrumpyjack says...6:57pm Sat 26 Apr 14

richardcompton3 wrote…

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

Great reply! Shame in the incident in question at no point did the bike touch the pedestrian and was basically a piece of crap who pushed him over. Still, as we have seen time and time again facts mean northing to those who would rather 'know' something than look at things like facts, experience, reality. Nah much easier to just 'know'. Tools.

[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Self-Righteous Mother[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardcompton3[/bold] wrote:
This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade.
Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.[/p][/quote]For Richard and the CLLRs
Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW
pY#t=454
Website: http://www.aviewfrom
thecyclepath.com/201
3/07/an-invitation-t
o-boris-johnson-to-c
ity.html
If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website.
And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change.
Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.[/p][/quote]Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix![/p][/quote]Great reply!
Shame in the incident in question at no point did the bike touch the pedestrian and was basically a piece of crap who pushed him over.
Still, as we have seen time and time again facts mean northing to those who would rather 'know' something than look at things like facts, experience, reality. Nah much easier to just 'know'.
Tools.scrumpyjack

richardcompton3 wrote…

Self-Righteous Mother wrote…

richardcompton3 wrote…

This must be one of the most dangerous ideas that Bounemouth Council has come up with this decade. Pedestrians and cyclist do not mix.

For Richard and the CLLRs Youtube video: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=EUpAMBMUW pY#t=454 Website: http://www.aviewfrom thecyclepath.com/201 3/07/an-invitation-t o-boris-johnson-to-c ity.html If you don't watch it all, watch the end -I think the Councillors should watch the whole thing and read the website. And people should do some research before making rash statements about pedestrians and cyclists not mixing. Maybe the Echo should do some research too, for a change. Changing Bournemouth might improve the centre and really put us on the map for forward thinking, like the town in the video. Probably a pipe dream though.

Cycles and pedestrians mixing? What a short memory you must have. Remember the elderly person mowed down in Boscombe recently. As I said, Cycling and pedestrianss don't mix!

Great reply! Shame in the incident in question at no point did the bike touch the pedestrian and was basically a piece of crap who pushed him over. Still, as we have seen time and time again facts mean northing to those who would rather 'know' something than look at things like facts, experience, reality. Nah much easier to just 'know'. Tools.

Score: 9

cromwell9 says...7:20pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Typical STUPID,idea by the LABOUR?LIB DEMS?INDIPENDENT councilors. Thats why they cant be trusted in government,

Typical STUPID,idea by the LABOUR?LIB DEMS?INDIPENDENT councilors.
Thats why they cant be trusted in government,cromwell9

Typical STUPID,idea by the LABOUR?LIB DEMS?INDIPENDENT councilors. Thats why they cant be trusted in government,

Score: -1

guisselle says...7:35pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Cycling keeps you fit and there are no fumes, well maybe a few fuming pedestrians!

Cycling keeps you fit and there are no fumes, well maybe a few fuming pedestrians!guisselle

Cycling keeps you fit and there are no fumes, well maybe a few fuming pedestrians!

Score: 0

Pyrotechnic says...7:51pm Sat 26 Apr 14

I read the headline and wondered how many comments. Bloody hell! That didn't take long! I'm a cyclist as would not dream of riding through the square for fear of being taken out by a skateboarder. I can't see why not just do the same as is done with the prom and have time restrictions. As for cycling through red lights : on pavements etc, I was cycling to a friend's house the other night and had to go through 3 sets of red traffic lights. I stopped. Some idiot teenager with massive headphones jumped every one. I made a point of catching him up each time to call him a c**k. There are 'cyclists' and there are 't*ssers who ride a bike'. Also, I wear Lycra, but last time I checked, I wasn't a lout.

I read the headline and wondered how many comments. Bloody hell! That didn't take long! I'm a cyclist as would not dream of riding through the square for fear of being taken out by a skateboarder.
I can't see why not just do the same as is done with the prom and have time restrictions.
As for cycling through red lights : on pavements etc, I was cycling to a friend's house the other night and had to go through 3 sets of red traffic lights. I stopped. Some idiot teenager with massive headphones jumped every one. I made a point of catching him up each time to call him a c**k.
There are 'cyclists' and there are 't*ssers who ride a bike'. Also, I wear Lycra, but last time I checked, I wasn't a lout.Pyrotechnic

I read the headline and wondered how many comments. Bloody hell! That didn't take long! I'm a cyclist as would not dream of riding through the square for fear of being taken out by a skateboarder. I can't see why not just do the same as is done with the prom and have time restrictions. As for cycling through red lights : on pavements etc, I was cycling to a friend's house the other night and had to go through 3 sets of red traffic lights. I stopped. Some idiot teenager with massive headphones jumped every one. I made a point of catching him up each time to call him a c**k. There are 'cyclists' and there are 't*ssers who ride a bike'. Also, I wear Lycra, but last time I checked, I wasn't a lout.

Score: 13

HiGene says...8:05pm Sat 26 Apr 14

It's a one year trial period. From this, hard facts will be gathered on its success or otherwise. But it's more fun to read people's entrenched opinions.

It's a one year trial period. From this, hard facts will be gathered on its success or otherwise.
But it's more fun to read people's entrenched opinions.HiGene

It's a one year trial period. From this, hard facts will be gathered on its success or otherwise. But it's more fun to read people's entrenched opinions.

Score: 8

Graham Rees says...8:49pm Sat 26 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

Thank you for your comment. Still doesn't make sense to me. How long does it take to walk your bicycle across Bournemouth Square or the Pier Approach. 3 minutes? Peanuts.

[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Graham Rees[/bold] wrote:
I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix![/p][/quote]But the mix is safer than car and cyclist![/p][/quote]Thank you for your comment. Still doesn't make sense to me. How long does it take to walk your bicycle across Bournemouth Square or the Pier Approach. 3 minutes? Peanuts.Graham Rees

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

Thank you for your comment. Still doesn't make sense to me. How long does it take to walk your bicycle across Bournemouth Square or the Pier Approach. 3 minutes? Peanuts.

Score: -3

FNS-man says...8:51pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine. Anything else you'd just like to make up?

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine.
Anything else you'd just like to make up?FNS-man

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine. Anything else you'd just like to make up?

Score: 5

FNS-man says...8:52pm Sat 26 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.FNS-man

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.

Score: 2

guisselle says...9:30pm Sat 26 Apr 14

breamoreboy wrote…

Sir Beachy Head wrote…

An umbrella into the spokes slows them up

If I insert my umbrella you'll be slowed up, and you'll also find it extremely difficult to sit down, although it should help to clear your voice a little bit.

OOH Saucy!

[quote][p][bold]breamoreboy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Sir Beachy Head[/bold] wrote:
An umbrella into the spokes slows them up[/p][/quote]If I insert my umbrella you'll be slowed up, and you'll also find it extremely difficult to sit down, although it should help to clear your voice a little bit.[/p][/quote]OOH Saucy!guisselle

breamoreboy wrote…

Sir Beachy Head wrote…

An umbrella into the spokes slows them up

If I insert my umbrella you'll be slowed up, and you'll also find it extremely difficult to sit down, although it should help to clear your voice a little bit.

OOH Saucy!

Score: 2

guisselle says...9:44pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Graham Rees wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

Thank you for your comment. Still doesn't make sense to me. How long does it take to walk your bicycle across Bournemouth Square or the Pier Approach. 3 minutes? Peanuts.

The naked cyclist streaks down Richmond hill and stops traffic!

[quote][p][bold]Graham Rees[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Graham Rees[/bold] wrote:
I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix![/p][/quote]But the mix is safer than car and cyclist![/p][/quote]Thank you for your comment. Still doesn't make sense to me. How long does it take to walk your bicycle across Bournemouth Square or the Pier Approach. 3 minutes? Peanuts.[/p][/quote]The naked cyclist streaks down Richmond hill and stops traffic!guisselle

Graham Rees wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

Graham Rees wrote…

I am totally against this idea. Even with marked cycle lanes in the Square and Pier Approach, pedestrians and cyclists are still going to cross paths. Steel of a bicycle and human flesh and bone do not mix!

But the mix is safer than car and cyclist!

Thank you for your comment. Still doesn't make sense to me. How long does it take to walk your bicycle across Bournemouth Square or the Pier Approach. 3 minutes? Peanuts.

The naked cyclist streaks down Richmond hill and stops traffic!

Score: 0

cest vrai says...12:23am Sun 27 Apr 14

FNS-man wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.

Whilst I totally agree with your interpretation of the road traffic act, I raised same point earlier i am not middle aged nor am I fat but I will be voting UKIP so thats your generalisation blown out of the water. In fact in black and female so you could not be more wrong. Xx

[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.[/p][/quote]Whilst I totally agree with your interpretation of the road traffic act, I raised same point earlier i am not middle aged nor am I fat but I will be voting UKIP so thats your generalisation blown out of the water.
In fact in black and female so you could not be more wrong. Xxcest vrai

FNS-man wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.

Whilst I totally agree with your interpretation of the road traffic act, I raised same point earlier i am not middle aged nor am I fat but I will be voting UKIP so thats your generalisation blown out of the water. In fact in black and female so you could not be more wrong. Xx

Score: -4

corozin says...6:45am Sun 27 Apr 14

I'm still waiting to see if a single cyclist is brave enough to cross that fancy new layout we spent so much money on at the top of Richmond Hill. Of course even a cursory inspection of the "kill zone" cycle lane that now sits in the middle of Wimborne Road would explain why nobody is chancing it, and I don't blame them either, but our Council seems utterly obsessed with this agenda right now seemingly regardless of how much money gets wasted, or how many pedestrians are injured as a result.

I'm still waiting to see if a single cyclist is brave enough to cross that fancy new layout we spent so much money on at the top of Richmond Hill.
Of course even a cursory inspection of the "kill zone" cycle lane that now sits in the middle of Wimborne Road would explain why nobody is chancing it, and I don't blame them either, but our Council seems utterly obsessed with this agenda right now seemingly regardless of how much money gets wasted, or how many pedestrians are injured as a result.corozin

I'm still waiting to see if a single cyclist is brave enough to cross that fancy new layout we spent so much money on at the top of Richmond Hill. Of course even a cursory inspection of the "kill zone" cycle lane that now sits in the middle of Wimborne Road would explain why nobody is chancing it, and I don't blame them either, but our Council seems utterly obsessed with this agenda right now seemingly regardless of how much money gets wasted, or how many pedestrians are injured as a result.

Score: 6

billy bumble says...7:42am Sun 27 Apr 14

Most sensible people avoid the Town Centre like the plague these days so there will be plenty of room for both pedestrians and cyclists

Most sensible people avoid the Town Centre like the plague these days so there will be plenty of room for both pedestrians and cyclistsbilly bumble

Most sensible people avoid the Town Centre like the plague these days so there will be plenty of room for both pedestrians and cyclists

Score: 6

eyesropen says...9:00am Sun 27 Apr 14

Can't be bothered reading through all of the sea of irrational negativity that is inevitable in these columns but hasn't it occurred to anyone that the reason people currently ride quickly across the square is to avoid being caught? Of course they shouldn't be but the fact is they always will, like car drivers will always ignore speed limits. This will solve that problem. Of course there are some idiot cyclists, same as there are some idiot car drivers who think that speed limits don't apply to them. Cyclists and pedestrians co-exist quite happily in other countries, why can't they here?

Can't be bothered reading through all of the sea of irrational negativity that is inevitable in these columns but hasn't it occurred to anyone that the reason people currently ride quickly across the square is to avoid being caught? Of course they shouldn't be but the fact is they always will, like car drivers will always ignore speed limits. This will solve that problem. Of course there are some idiot cyclists, same as there are some idiot car drivers who think that speed limits don't apply to them. Cyclists and pedestrians co-exist quite happily in other countries, why can't they here?eyesropen

Can't be bothered reading through all of the sea of irrational negativity that is inevitable in these columns but hasn't it occurred to anyone that the reason people currently ride quickly across the square is to avoid being caught? Of course they shouldn't be but the fact is they always will, like car drivers will always ignore speed limits. This will solve that problem. Of course there are some idiot cyclists, same as there are some idiot car drivers who think that speed limits don't apply to them. Cyclists and pedestrians co-exist quite happily in other countries, why can't they here?

Score: -2

Marty Caine UKIP says...9:06am Sun 27 Apr 14

FNS-man wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine. Anything else you'd just like to make up?

Would you think that I made up rule 64 of the Highway Code ? 64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 It actually carries a fixed penalty notice of £30 if pleading guilty but you can be fined up to £500. But just out of curiosity do you agree with the idea of letting cyclists ride on pedestrianised areas ?

[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine.
Anything else you'd just like to make up?[/p][/quote]Would you think that I made up rule 64 of the Highway Code ?
64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129
It actually carries a fixed penalty notice of £30 if pleading guilty but you can be fined up to £500.
But just out of curiosity do you agree with the idea of letting cyclists ride on pedestrianised areas ?Marty Caine UKIP

FNS-man wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine. Anything else you'd just like to make up?

Would you think that I made up rule 64 of the Highway Code ? 64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 It actually carries a fixed penalty notice of £30 if pleading guilty but you can be fined up to £500. But just out of curiosity do you agree with the idea of letting cyclists ride on pedestrianised areas ?

Score: -10

Marty Caine UKIP says...9:32am Sun 27 Apr 14

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.

Actually that sounds far more like an EU idea than a UKIP one in respect of reg plates, tax and MOT but I do actually see the sense in cyclists having some sort of public liability insurance or do you believe that no cyclist has ever been the cause of an accident?

[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.[/p][/quote]Actually that sounds far more like an EU idea than a UKIP one in respect of reg plates, tax and MOT but I do actually see the sense in cyclists having some sort of public liability insurance or do you believe that no cyclist has ever been the cause of an accident?Marty Caine UKIP

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.

Actually that sounds far more like an EU idea than a UKIP one in respect of reg plates, tax and MOT but I do actually see the sense in cyclists having some sort of public liability insurance or do you believe that no cyclist has ever been the cause of an accident?

Score: -8

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth says...9:33am Sun 27 Apr 14

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all.
I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea.
The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed.
Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far.
I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion.
There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed.
Martin Houlden
UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West
www.ukipbournemouth.
comMartin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Score: -6

Marty Caine UKIP says...9:37am Sun 27 Apr 14

retry69 wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)

Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areas

[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)[/p][/quote]Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areasMarty Caine UKIP

retry69 wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)

Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areas

Score: -10

pete woodley says...10:05am Sun 27 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

retry69 wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)

Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areas

I agree fully on this issue,i cannot see any reason at all for the need to cycle through the Square.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)[/p][/quote]Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areas[/p][/quote]I agree fully on this issue,i cannot see any reason at all for the need to cycle through the Square.pete woodley

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

retry69 wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)

Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areas

I agree fully on this issue,i cannot see any reason at all for the need to cycle through the Square.

Score: -5

pete woodley says...10:05am Sun 27 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

retry69 wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)

Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areas

I agree fully on this issue,i cannot see any reason at all for the need to cycle through the Square.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]retry69[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)[/p][/quote]Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areas[/p][/quote]I agree fully on this issue,i cannot see any reason at all for the need to cycle through the Square.pete woodley

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

retry69 wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

Tut tut Mr Caine not googling for the facts before you comment so unlike you :)

Why don't you Google Pedestrian and then consider why they are actually called pedestrianised areas

I agree fully on this issue,i cannot see any reason at all for the need to cycle through the Square.

Score: -3

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...10:22am Sun 27 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.

Actually that sounds far more like an EU idea than a UKIP one in respect of reg plates, tax and MOT but I do actually see the sense in cyclists having some sort of public liability insurance or do you believe that no cyclist has ever been the cause of an accident?

And peds!

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.[/p][/quote]Actually that sounds far more like an EU idea than a UKIP one in respect of reg plates, tax and MOT but I do actually see the sense in cyclists having some sort of public liability insurance or do you believe that no cyclist has ever been the cause of an accident?[/p][/quote]And peds!The-Bleeding-Obvious

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

mikey2gorgeous wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

UKIP want to have reg plates on bikes, tax & MOT annually and insurance. How the hell are we going to get people out of cars and on bikes with that sort of crap? Utterly ludicrous.

Actually that sounds far more like an EU idea than a UKIP one in respect of reg plates, tax and MOT but I do actually see the sense in cyclists having some sort of public liability insurance or do you believe that no cyclist has ever been the cause of an accident?

And peds!

Score: 2

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...10:34am Sun 27 Apr 14

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

What a poor analysis! In line with ukips analysis of membership EU I'd say!

[quote][p][bold]Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth[/bold] wrote:
I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all.
I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea.
The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed.
Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far.
I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion.
There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed.
Martin Houlden
UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West
www.ukipbournemouth.
com[/p][/quote]What a poor analysis! In line with ukips analysis of membership EU I'd say!The-Bleeding-Obvious

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

What a poor analysis! In line with ukips analysis of membership EU I'd say!

Score: 7

cest vrai says...10:38am Sun 27 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

FNS-man wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.

Whilst I totally agree with your interpretation of the road traffic act, I raised same point earlier i am not middle aged nor am I fat but I will be voting UKIP so thats your generalisation blown out of the water. In fact in black and female so you could not be more wrong. Xx

Interested why the 3 negative comments. Is it because I'm black, I'm female or intending to vote UKIP. I'm hoping its none of the above and just the thought of me in my tight Lycra as TBH I know that a large booty is not everyone's cup if tea but was curious. Please elaborate.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.[/p][/quote]Whilst I totally agree with your interpretation of the road traffic act, I raised same point earlier i am not middle aged nor am I fat but I will be voting UKIP so thats your generalisation blown out of the water.
In fact in black and female so you could not be more wrong. Xx[/p][/quote]Interested why the 3 negative comments. Is it because I'm black, I'm female or intending to vote UKIP.
I'm hoping its none of the above and just the thought of me in my tight Lycra as TBH I know that a large booty is not everyone's cup if tea but was curious.
Please elaborate.cest vrai

cest vrai wrote…

FNS-man wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

UKIP are massively anti-cyclist. Mainly because they are fat middle-aged men.

Whilst I totally agree with your interpretation of the road traffic act, I raised same point earlier i am not middle aged nor am I fat but I will be voting UKIP so thats your generalisation blown out of the water. In fact in black and female so you could not be more wrong. Xx

Interested why the 3 negative comments. Is it because I'm black, I'm female or intending to vote UKIP. I'm hoping its none of the above and just the thought of me in my tight Lycra as TBH I know that a large booty is not everyone's cup if tea but was curious. Please elaborate.

Score: 0

pete woodley says...10:39am Sun 27 Apr 14

I am not an UKIP supporter,but am fully in agreement with Martin Houlden's comments,and can see no reason for your nasty reply,

I am not an UKIP supporter,but am fully in agreement with Martin Houlden's comments,and can see no reason for your nasty reply,pete woodley

I am not an UKIP supporter,but am fully in agreement with Martin Houlden's comments,and can see no reason for your nasty reply,

Score: -5

beachcomber1 says...11:03am Sun 27 Apr 14

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.beachcomber1

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

Score: -2

HiGene says...11:16am Sun 27 Apr 14

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample".

[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.[/p][/quote]I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area.
I think that's what they call a "counterexample".HiGene

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample".

Score: 7

Marty Caine UKIP says...11:45am Sun 27 Apr 14

I am quite amazed that comments opposing this idea are getting so many negative clicks. Think about it logically for one moment, do the advantages to the cyclists for agreeing to this decision outweigh the disadvantages to the pedestrians, of course they don't. so that should say to any sensinsible minded person that this decision is wrong, surely?

I am quite amazed that comments opposing this idea are getting so many negative clicks. Think about it logically for one moment, do the advantages to the cyclists for agreeing to this decision outweigh the disadvantages to the pedestrians, of course they don't. so that should say to any sensinsible minded person that this decision is wrong, surely?Marty Caine UKIP

I am quite amazed that comments opposing this idea are getting so many negative clicks. Think about it logically for one moment, do the advantages to the cyclists for agreeing to this decision outweigh the disadvantages to the pedestrians, of course they don't. so that should say to any sensinsible minded person that this decision is wrong, surely?

Score: -9

HiGene says...11:52am Sun 27 Apr 14

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Establish credentials by making reference to being a cyclist, and add a badge of honour for being hit by a car. > "I think I have a valid perspective" Yes, and everyone thinks they have a great sense of humour too. > " I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all" Based on what? Divination? Picking up vibrations through the ether? > "I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members" Yes. That sounds like an unbiased sample of people. > "The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. " Here's a fun game to play. Replace "cyclists" with any other group of people, and, just like magic, the sentence remains true. Paul Daniels would be impressed. I'll start you off with two for free: "motorists" and "UKIP members". > "reckless riders" Score +1 point for alliteration. Let's now cut to the chase and see what the core of your argument is:- > "Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph " You also mention zig-zagging and street furniture as being relevant distinguishing factors.. Let's examine them all, as you may have a valid point. 1. Zig-zagging. Yes, people shopping may well zig-zag more. The promenade is a linear space, so people tend to walk along it in a straight line. However, kids don't. They dart out from the beach, across the prom to the beach huts. Here's another one - people play ball games on the prom. And another - people walk their dogs, and dogs don't walk in a straight line. So that's three examples, pretty much specific to the promenade, where cyclists already have to avoid unexpected side-to-side movements. 2. Street furniture. Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but Bmth Square hardly has any street furniture. I think there's a postbox? I don't think this is your strongest point, to be fair. 3. Speed. Who's to say there won't be signs limiting speed to 10mph? In any case, there's less opportunity to accelerate to a high speed in the space of Bmth Square, for example, than along the miles of promenade. So, again, I can't really buy this argument. 4. Time and/or seasonal restrictions. Again, who's to say during the course of this trial period that this won't be considered if deemed necessary? It's orthogonal to the main proposal. We continue. What other straws were you clutching at...? 5. Theft. This is getting a little silly now. Has handbag theft increased since cycling was allowed along the prom? You have some stats on THAT, presumably. The rest of your letter is waffle.

[quote][p][bold]Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth[/bold] wrote:
I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all.
I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea.
The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed.
Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far.
I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion.
There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed.
Martin Houlden
UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West
www.ukipbournemouth.
com[/p][/quote]Establish credentials by making reference to being a cyclist, and add a badge of honour for being hit by a car.
> "I think I have a valid perspective"
Yes, and everyone thinks they have a great sense of humour too.
> " I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all"
Based on what? Divination? Picking up vibrations through the ether?
> "I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members"
Yes. That sounds like an unbiased sample of people.
> "The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. "
Here's a fun game to play. Replace "cyclists" with any other group of people, and, just like magic, the sentence remains true. Paul Daniels would be impressed. I'll start you off with two for free: "motorists" and "UKIP members".
> "reckless riders"
Score +1 point for alliteration.
Let's now cut to the chase and see what the core of your argument is:-
> "Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph "
You also mention zig-zagging and street furniture as being relevant distinguishing factors.. Let's examine them all, as you may have a valid point.
1. Zig-zagging. Yes, people shopping may well zig-zag more. The promenade is a linear space, so people tend to walk along it in a straight line. However, kids don't. They dart out from the beach, across the prom to the beach huts. Here's another one - people play ball games on the prom. And another - people walk their dogs, and dogs don't walk in a straight line. So that's three examples, pretty much specific to the promenade, where cyclists already have to avoid unexpected side-to-side movements.
2. Street furniture. Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but Bmth Square hardly has any street furniture. I think there's a postbox? I don't think this is your strongest point, to be fair.
3. Speed. Who's to say there won't be signs limiting speed to 10mph? In any case, there's less opportunity to accelerate to a high speed in the space of Bmth Square, for example, than along the miles of promenade. So, again, I can't really buy this argument.
4. Time and/or seasonal restrictions. Again, who's to say during the course of this trial period that this won't be considered if deemed necessary? It's orthogonal to the main proposal.
We continue. What other straws were you clutching at...?
5. Theft. This is getting a little silly now. Has handbag theft increased since cycling was allowed along the prom? You have some stats on THAT, presumably.
The rest of your letter is waffle.HiGene

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Establish credentials by making reference to being a cyclist, and add a badge of honour for being hit by a car. > "I think I have a valid perspective" Yes, and everyone thinks they have a great sense of humour too. > " I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all" Based on what? Divination? Picking up vibrations through the ether? > "I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members" Yes. That sounds like an unbiased sample of people. > "The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. " Here's a fun game to play. Replace "cyclists" with any other group of people, and, just like magic, the sentence remains true. Paul Daniels would be impressed. I'll start you off with two for free: "motorists" and "UKIP members". > "reckless riders" Score +1 point for alliteration. Let's now cut to the chase and see what the core of your argument is:- > "Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph " You also mention zig-zagging and street furniture as being relevant distinguishing factors.. Let's examine them all, as you may have a valid point. 1. Zig-zagging. Yes, people shopping may well zig-zag more. The promenade is a linear space, so people tend to walk along it in a straight line. However, kids don't. They dart out from the beach, across the prom to the beach huts. Here's another one - people play ball games on the prom. And another - people walk their dogs, and dogs don't walk in a straight line. So that's three examples, pretty much specific to the promenade, where cyclists already have to avoid unexpected side-to-side movements. 2. Street furniture. Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but Bmth Square hardly has any street furniture. I think there's a postbox? I don't think this is your strongest point, to be fair. 3. Speed. Who's to say there won't be signs limiting speed to 10mph? In any case, there's less opportunity to accelerate to a high speed in the space of Bmth Square, for example, than along the miles of promenade. So, again, I can't really buy this argument. 4. Time and/or seasonal restrictions. Again, who's to say during the course of this trial period that this won't be considered if deemed necessary? It's orthogonal to the main proposal. We continue. What other straws were you clutching at...? 5. Theft. This is getting a little silly now. Has handbag theft increased since cycling was allowed along the prom? You have some stats on THAT, presumably. The rest of your letter is waffle.

Score: 11

winton50 says...11:53am Sun 27 Apr 14

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Ha ha UKIP peddling the politics of fear once again Shoplifting and handbag theft will increase due to cycling in the square? So what people who steal handbags now don't do because cycling isn't allowed in a 100 foot section? If they are nicking handbags they are hardly going to respect a no cycling sign are they? My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats? Don't like something? Regulate and ban it. Don't be taken in people UKIP are simply another side of the same tired political coin. They are just hoping to garner the vote of cyclist haters. Don't believe for one minute they'd actually do anything.

[quote][p][bold]Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth[/bold] wrote:
I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all.
I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea.
The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed.
Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far.
I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion.
There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed.
Martin Houlden
UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West
www.ukipbournemouth.
com[/p][/quote]Ha ha UKIP peddling the politics of fear once again
Shoplifting and handbag theft will increase due to cycling in the square? So what people who steal handbags now don't do because cycling isn't allowed in a 100 foot section? If they are nicking handbags they are hardly going to respect a no cycling sign are they?
My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats? Don't like something? Regulate and ban it.
Don't be taken in people UKIP are simply another side of the same tired political coin. They are just hoping to garner the vote of cyclist haters. Don't believe for one minute they'd actually do anything.winton50

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Ha ha UKIP peddling the politics of fear once again Shoplifting and handbag theft will increase due to cycling in the square? So what people who steal handbags now don't do because cycling isn't allowed in a 100 foot section? If they are nicking handbags they are hardly going to respect a no cycling sign are they? My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats? Don't like something? Regulate and ban it. Don't be taken in people UKIP are simply another side of the same tired political coin. They are just hoping to garner the vote of cyclist haters. Don't believe for one minute they'd actually do anything.

Score: 6

Marty Caine UKIP says...12:08pm Sun 27 Apr 14

winton50 wrote…

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Ha ha UKIP peddling the politics of fear once again Shoplifting and handbag theft will increase due to cycling in the square? So what people who steal handbags now don't do because cycling isn't allowed in a 100 foot section? If they are nicking handbags they are hardly going to respect a no cycling sign are they? My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats? Don't like something? Regulate and ban it. Don't be taken in people UKIP are simply another side of the same tired political coin. They are just hoping to garner the vote of cyclist haters. Don't believe for one minute they'd actually do anything.

Quote "My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats?" Must come as a bit of a shock to you to find out that I, like many others in UKIP happen to be ex Labour then. No one is trying to ban or regulate anything, all I and others are actually saying is do not deregulate something that is obviously going to end up with someone getting hurt. That is simply common sense.

[quote][p][bold]winton50[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth[/bold] wrote:
I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all.
I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea.
The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed.
Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far.
I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion.
There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed.
Martin Houlden
UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West
www.ukipbournemouth.
com[/p][/quote]Ha ha UKIP peddling the politics of fear once again
Shoplifting and handbag theft will increase due to cycling in the square? So what people who steal handbags now don't do because cycling isn't allowed in a 100 foot section? If they are nicking handbags they are hardly going to respect a no cycling sign are they?
My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats? Don't like something? Regulate and ban it.
Don't be taken in people UKIP are simply another side of the same tired political coin. They are just hoping to garner the vote of cyclist haters. Don't believe for one minute they'd actually do anything.[/p][/quote]Quote "My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats?"
Must come as a bit of a shock to you to find out that I, like many others in UKIP happen to be ex Labour then.
No one is trying to ban or regulate anything, all I and others are actually saying is do not deregulate something that is obviously going to end up with someone getting hurt. That is simply common sense.Marty Caine UKIP

winton50 wrote…

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Ha ha UKIP peddling the politics of fear once again Shoplifting and handbag theft will increase due to cycling in the square? So what people who steal handbags now don't do because cycling isn't allowed in a 100 foot section? If they are nicking handbags they are hardly going to respect a no cycling sign are they? My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats? Don't like something? Regulate and ban it. Don't be taken in people UKIP are simply another side of the same tired political coin. They are just hoping to garner the vote of cyclist haters. Don't believe for one minute they'd actually do anything.

Quote "My my don't UKIP sound just like a bunch of Tory and EU bureaucrats?" Must come as a bit of a shock to you to find out that I, like many others in UKIP happen to be ex Labour then. No one is trying to ban or regulate anything, all I and others are actually saying is do not deregulate something that is obviously going to end up with someone getting hurt. That is simply common sense.

Score: -5

beachcomber1 says...12:22pm Sun 27 Apr 14

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample ".

i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.

[quote][p][bold]HiGene[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.[/p][/quote]I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area.
I think that's what they call a "counterexample
".[/p][/quote]i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.beachcomber1

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample ".

i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.

Score: -3

HiGene says...12:30pm Sun 27 Apr 14

beachcomber1 wrote…

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample ".

i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.

No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.

[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HiGene[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.[/p][/quote]I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area.
I think that's what they call a "counterexample
".[/p][/quote]i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.[/p][/quote]No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.HiGene

beachcomber1 wrote…

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample ".

i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.

No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.

Score: 5

Chriswood says...12:35pm Sun 27 Apr 14

tuftyno1 wrote…

As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it!

I'm exactly the same age and also a keen cyclist, walker and sometime motorist and totally agree with you Tufty.

[quote][p][bold]tuftyno1[/bold] wrote:
As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it![/p][/quote]I'm exactly the same age and also a keen cyclist, walker and sometime motorist and totally agree with you Tufty.Chriswood

tuftyno1 wrote…

As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it!

I'm exactly the same age and also a keen cyclist, walker and sometime motorist and totally agree with you Tufty.

Score: 1

beachcomber1 says...12:49pm Sun 27 Apr 14

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample ".

i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.

No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.

i believe the evidence of my own eyes, which have never witnessed the above despite being around Pier Approach many many times, at all times of the day and year. so i am sceptical about your claims until i witness it with my own eyes.

[quote][p][bold]HiGene[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HiGene[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.[/p][/quote]I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area.
I think that's what they call a "counterexample
".[/p][/quote]i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.[/p][/quote]No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.[/p][/quote]i believe the evidence of my own eyes, which have never witnessed the above despite being around Pier Approach many many times, at all times of the day and year. so i am sceptical about your claims until i witness it with my own eyes.beachcomber1

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample ".

i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.

No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.

i believe the evidence of my own eyes, which have never witnessed the above despite being around Pier Approach many many times, at all times of the day and year. so i am sceptical about your claims until i witness it with my own eyes.

Score: -4

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...12:53pm Sun 27 Apr 14

Chriswood wrote…

tuftyno1 wrote…

As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it!

I'm exactly the same age and also a keen cyclist, walker and sometime motorist and totally agree with you Tufty.

There's room for a cycle track on the G n Ts side of the road 'on' the pavement extending from Winton Banks to Moordown. Saturday morning cycling through Winton is definitely hi risk!

[quote][p][bold]Chriswood[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]tuftyno1[/bold] wrote:
As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it![/p][/quote]I'm exactly the same age and also a keen cyclist, walker and sometime motorist and totally agree with you Tufty.[/p][/quote]There's room for a cycle track on the G n Ts side of the road 'on' the pavement extending from Winton Banks to Moordown. Saturday morning cycling through Winton is definitely hi risk!The-Bleeding-Obvious

Chriswood wrote…

tuftyno1 wrote…

As a 68 year old walker, cyclist and driver, who frequently uses this route from Meyrick Park to the Pier..... and sometimes along the prom, I am really upset by the idiots who I see racing along pedestrian areas with no thought for little children or elderly, nor give way to pedestrians far exceeding the 10 m.p.h. limit along the prom. Sad to say as there are irresponsible motorists, there are irresponsible cyclists and THESE are the ones who need the counsel, or maybe some fines. I was heartened to see in a shop window in Winton the other day that cyclists who cycle on the pavements would be fined £30. I hope the police enforce this on the stupid few who have no concern for the general public, many of whom have no lights at night either, expecting the world to make allowances for them. That's the world we live in now, like it or lump it!

I'm exactly the same age and also a keen cyclist, walker and sometime motorist and totally agree with you Tufty.

There's room for a cycle track on the G n Ts side of the road 'on' the pavement extending from Winton Banks to Moordown. Saturday morning cycling through Winton is definitely hi risk!

Score: 2

HiGene says...12:59pm Sun 27 Apr 14

beachcomber1 wrote…

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample ".

i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.

No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.

i believe the evidence of my own eyes, which have never witnessed the above despite being around Pier Approach many many times, at all times of the day and year. so i am sceptical about your claims until i witness it with my own eyes.

That's hilarious. So you're calling me a flat-out liar? I always stop, dismount and walk across the pier approach area, and Bmth Square for that matter. I also always stop at red lights, for good measure. Why do you find it so hard to believe what someone is telling you what they do? Tell me, do you ONLY believe things that you've seen first-hand? Do you believe the Earth is spherical? You'd have to go into orbit to see that with your own eyes.

[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HiGene[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]HiGene[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]beachcomber1[/bold] wrote:
i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.[/p][/quote]I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area.
I think that's what they call a "counterexample
".[/p][/quote]i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.[/p][/quote]No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.[/p][/quote]i believe the evidence of my own eyes, which have never witnessed the above despite being around Pier Approach many many times, at all times of the day and year. so i am sceptical about your claims until i witness it with my own eyes.[/p][/quote]That's hilarious. So you're calling me a flat-out liar? I always stop, dismount and walk across the pier approach area, and Bmth Square for that matter. I also always stop at red lights, for good measure. Why do you find it so hard to believe what someone is telling you what they do? Tell me, do you ONLY believe things that you've seen first-hand? Do you believe the Earth is spherical? You'd have to go into orbit to see that with your own eyes.HiGene

beachcomber1 wrote…

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

HiGene wrote…

beachcomber1 wrote…

i have never seen a cyclist on the Prom stop, dismount, and wheel their bike across Pier Approach. i doubt if any are aware that cycling is banned in that area. so totally meaningless as far as that is concerned.

I stop, dismount and wheel my across Pier Approach. I am aware that cycling is banned in that area. I think that's what they call a "counterexample ".

i don't believe you. i think that's called scepticism.

No, not scepticism. I believe that you believe what you believe. Believe me, I do.

i believe the evidence of my own eyes, which have never witnessed the above despite being around Pier Approach many many times, at all times of the day and year. so i am sceptical about your claims until i witness it with my own eyes.

That's hilarious. So you're calling me a flat-out liar? I always stop, dismount and walk across the pier approach area, and Bmth Square for that matter. I also always stop at red lights, for good measure. Why do you find it so hard to believe what someone is telling you what they do? Tell me, do you ONLY believe things that you've seen first-hand? Do you believe the Earth is spherical? You'd have to go into orbit to see that with your own eyes.

Score: 8

HiGene says...1:19pm Sun 27 Apr 14

Lycra Louts! Reckless Riders! Oooh, they make my blood boil! Where will it all end? Think of the children! What if a young mother is BREASTFEEDING and gets MOWED DOWN by a LYCRA LOUT with their LYCRA and, and, and their LYCRA and their LYCRA???? What then? SPANDEX BANDITS! And none of them have a BELL! What happened to the BELL? And TEXTING!!!! And NO HANDS RIDING!!!! What if a YOUNG MOTHER is BREASTFEEDING her DISABLED BABY from POLAND? What then? A LYCRA LOUT riding a SPANDEX KILLING MACHINE MOWS THEM DOWN and he HASN'T GOT A BELL!!! Ooooh! Today's key words are: lycra, spandex, bell, breastfeeding I've got some time to kill this morning, and mucking around on here beats mowing the grass.

Lycra Louts! Reckless Riders! Oooh, they make my blood boil! Where will it all end? Think of the children! What if a young mother is BREASTFEEDING and gets MOWED DOWN by a LYCRA LOUT with their LYCRA and, and, and their LYCRA and their LYCRA???? What then? SPANDEX BANDITS! And none of them have a BELL! What happened to the BELL? And TEXTING!!!! And NO HANDS RIDING!!!! What if a YOUNG MOTHER is BREASTFEEDING her DISABLED BABY from POLAND? What then? A LYCRA LOUT riding a SPANDEX KILLING MACHINE MOWS THEM DOWN and he HASN'T GOT A BELL!!! Ooooh!
Today's key words are: lycra, spandex, bell, breastfeeding
I've got some time to kill this morning, and mucking around on here beats mowing the grass.HiGene

Lycra Louts! Reckless Riders! Oooh, they make my blood boil! Where will it all end? Think of the children! What if a young mother is BREASTFEEDING and gets MOWED DOWN by a LYCRA LOUT with their LYCRA and, and, and their LYCRA and their LYCRA???? What then? SPANDEX BANDITS! And none of them have a BELL! What happened to the BELL? And TEXTING!!!! And NO HANDS RIDING!!!! What if a YOUNG MOTHER is BREASTFEEDING her DISABLED BABY from POLAND? What then? A LYCRA LOUT riding a SPANDEX KILLING MACHINE MOWS THEM DOWN and he HASN'T GOT A BELL!!! Ooooh! Today's key words are: lycra, spandex, bell, breastfeeding I've got some time to kill this morning, and mucking around on here beats mowing the grass.

Score: 2

scrumpyjack says...1:51pm Sun 27 Apr 14

HiGene wrote…

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Establish credentials by making reference to being a cyclist, and add a badge of honour for being hit by a car. > "I think I have a valid perspective" Yes, and everyone thinks they have a great sense of humour too. > " I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all" Based on what? Divination? Picking up vibrations through the ether? > "I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members" Yes. That sounds like an unbiased sample of people. > "The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. " Here's a fun game to play. Replace "cyclists" with any other group of people, and, just like magic, the sentence remains true. Paul Daniels would be impressed. I'll start you off with two for free: "motorists" and "UKIP members". > "reckless riders" Score +1 point for alliteration. Let's now cut to the chase and see what the core of your argument is:- > "Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph " You also mention zig-zagging and street furniture as being relevant distinguishing factors.. Let's examine them all, as you may have a valid point. 1. Zig-zagging. Yes, people shopping may well zig-zag more. The promenade is a linear space, so people tend to walk along it in a straight line. However, kids don't. They dart out from the beach, across the prom to the beach huts. Here's another one - people play ball games on the prom. And another - people walk their dogs, and dogs don't walk in a straight line. So that's three examples, pretty much specific to the promenade, where cyclists already have to avoid unexpected side-to-side movements. 2. Street furniture. Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but Bmth Square hardly has any street furniture. I think there's a postbox? I don't think this is your strongest point, to be fair. 3. Speed. Who's to say there won't be signs limiting speed to 10mph? In any case, there's less opportunity to accelerate to a high speed in the space of Bmth Square, for example, than along the miles of promenade. So, again, I can't really buy this argument. 4. Time and/or seasonal restrictions. Again, who's to say during the course of this trial period that this won't be considered if deemed necessary? It's orthogonal to the main proposal. We continue. What other straws were you clutching at...? 5. Theft. This is getting a little silly now. Has handbag theft increased since cycling was allowed along the prom? You have some stats on THAT, presumably. The rest of your letter is waffle.

Best response I have seen on here for a long, long time. ('+1 point for alliteration' = genius)

[quote][p][bold]HiGene[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth[/bold] wrote:
I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all.
I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea.
The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed.
Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far.
I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion.
There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed.
Martin Houlden
UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West
www.ukipbournemouth.
com[/p][/quote]Establish credentials by making reference to being a cyclist, and add a badge of honour for being hit by a car.
> "I think I have a valid perspective"
Yes, and everyone thinks they have a great sense of humour too.
> " I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all"
Based on what? Divination? Picking up vibrations through the ether?
> "I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members"
Yes. That sounds like an unbiased sample of people.
> "The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. "
Here's a fun game to play. Replace "cyclists" with any other group of people, and, just like magic, the sentence remains true. Paul Daniels would be impressed. I'll start you off with two for free: "motorists" and "UKIP members".
> "reckless riders"
Score +1 point for alliteration.
Let's now cut to the chase and see what the core of your argument is:-
> "Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph "
You also mention zig-zagging and street furniture as being relevant distinguishing factors.. Let's examine them all, as you may have a valid point.
1. Zig-zagging. Yes, people shopping may well zig-zag more. The promenade is a linear space, so people tend to walk along it in a straight line. However, kids don't. They dart out from the beach, across the prom to the beach huts. Here's another one - people play ball games on the prom. And another - people walk their dogs, and dogs don't walk in a straight line. So that's three examples, pretty much specific to the promenade, where cyclists already have to avoid unexpected side-to-side movements.
2. Street furniture. Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but Bmth Square hardly has any street furniture. I think there's a postbox? I don't think this is your strongest point, to be fair.
3. Speed. Who's to say there won't be signs limiting speed to 10mph? In any case, there's less opportunity to accelerate to a high speed in the space of Bmth Square, for example, than along the miles of promenade. So, again, I can't really buy this argument.
4. Time and/or seasonal restrictions. Again, who's to say during the course of this trial period that this won't be considered if deemed necessary? It's orthogonal to the main proposal.
We continue. What other straws were you clutching at...?
5. Theft. This is getting a little silly now. Has handbag theft increased since cycling was allowed along the prom? You have some stats on THAT, presumably.
The rest of your letter is waffle.[/p][/quote]Best response I have seen on here for a long, long time.
('+1 point for alliteration' = genius)scrumpyjack

HiGene wrote…

Martin Houlden UKIP Bournemouth wrote…

I speak as a regular cyclist (and one who’s been hit by a car to boot), but also someone who regularly walks through the town centre so I think I have a valid perspective. But overall I think this has the potential to be an absolute disaster, and I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all. I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members, and some of our candidates who will be standing for UKIP at the local elections next year, in order to gauge a range of views. But so far we are overwhelmingly against this idea. The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. I expect these to be a minority and that those reckless riders will give other cyclists a bad name, but it only takes one accident to kill or seriously injure a child or an elderly person. To say this won’t happen is to argue against physics and human nature. The fact of the matter is that a fast-moving bike cannot stop as quickly as a slow one - and this proposal doesn’t seem to offer any restrictions on access times or speed. Some councillors seem to be suggesting that because allowing cycling on the promenade has been a success, then this will also be the same in the high street. This is a false comparison as there are several important distinctions: Firstly people walking on the prom do not tend to zig-zag from one side of it to the other (like they do when shopping), secondly the visibility (for both pedestrians and cyclists) is reduced due to ’street furniture’ in the town centre. Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph (and occasionally enforced too). In effect what the council have said is that cycling is too dangerous when there are lots of people around, and as the speed increases, so does the potential for injury. How many of us remember the critical injury suffered by 9yr old Leila Crofts at Branksome Chine last summer when she was hit by a cyclist who was unable to stop - an injury which resulted in her near death and hospitalisation for several weeks. Thankfully she appears to have made a good recover so far. I also wonder if ‘handbag theft’ and shoplifting will become more prevalent as potential lawbreakers will now be able to make a quick getaway. Perhaps local shopkeepers might have a strong opinion. There is a valid point to say that cyclists and cars do not always mix well (I know this to my cost!), however suggesting that the solution is therefore to mix cyclists and pedestrians is illogical and a flawed argument. And whist there may be a reasonable case to be made for allowing slow and considered cycling in some pedestrian areas we feel that town centre is not such an area, especially as none of these precautions appear to have been included or considered by the councillors who want to proceed. Martin Houlden UKIP Parliamentary Candidate Bournemouth West www.ukipbournemouth. com

Establish credentials by making reference to being a cyclist, and add a badge of honour for being hit by a car. > "I think I have a valid perspective" Yes, and everyone thinks they have a great sense of humour too. > " I really don’t feel that the council have thought this through at all" Based on what? Divination? Picking up vibrations through the ether? > "I have canvassed opinion from other UKIP members" Yes. That sounds like an unbiased sample of people. > "The sad reality is that some cyclists will not act in a responsible manner. " Here's a fun game to play. Replace "cyclists" with any other group of people, and, just like magic, the sentence remains true. Paul Daniels would be impressed. I'll start you off with two for free: "motorists" and "UKIP members". > "reckless riders" Score +1 point for alliteration. Let's now cut to the chase and see what the core of your argument is:- > "Finally the most important distinction is that cycling on the prom is banned during busy periods (10am - 6pm July and August) and the speed is limited to 10mph " You also mention zig-zagging and street furniture as being relevant distinguishing factors.. Let's examine them all, as you may have a valid point. 1. Zig-zagging. Yes, people shopping may well zig-zag more. The promenade is a linear space, so people tend to walk along it in a straight line. However, kids don't. They dart out from the beach, across the prom to the beach huts. Here's another one - people play ball games on the prom. And another - people walk their dogs, and dogs don't walk in a straight line. So that's three examples, pretty much specific to the promenade, where cyclists already have to avoid unexpected side-to-side movements. 2. Street furniture. Well, maybe I'm missing something here, but Bmth Square hardly has any street furniture. I think there's a postbox? I don't think this is your strongest point, to be fair. 3. Speed. Who's to say there won't be signs limiting speed to 10mph? In any case, there's less opportunity to accelerate to a high speed in the space of Bmth Square, for example, than along the miles of promenade. So, again, I can't really buy this argument. 4. Time and/or seasonal restrictions. Again, who's to say during the course of this trial period that this won't be considered if deemed necessary? It's orthogonal to the main proposal. We continue. What other straws were you clutching at...? 5. Theft. This is getting a little silly now. Has handbag theft increased since cycling was allowed along the prom? You have some stats on THAT, presumably. The rest of your letter is waffle.

Best response I have seen on here for a long, long time. ('+1 point for alliteration' = genius)

Score: 7

southbourne lover says...2:02pm Sun 27 Apr 14

cest vrai wrote…

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them. How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.

Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.

Lol. A real regular then!!!!

Used to visit the town much more often but it is not a pleasant experience these days and looks set to get even worse.

[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southbourne lover[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]southbourne lover[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners.
Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X[/p][/quote]Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.[/p][/quote]So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them.
How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many
Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.[/p][/quote]Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.[/p][/quote]Lol. A real regular then!!!![/p][/quote]Used to visit the town much more often but it is not a pleasant experience these days and looks set to get even worse.southbourne lover

cest vrai wrote…

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

southbourne lover wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Well ce you later folks I'm off to "legally" ride my bike through the square and along the prom etc. hope I don't encounter any of you moaners. Ps I'll be the one In The tight Lycra. X

Thanks for the warning, although I do not really need it. I will be one of the many who will visit the town even less than I do now.

So you like many others on here I suspect are commenting on matters that do not concern them. How many comentots in the subject of the square have actually been there in, to give you a chance, say the last month. Not many Sorry for typos so hard to type whole trying to avoid these walkers who keep getting in my way.

Funnily enough I went to the town centre about 10 days ago.

Lol. A real regular then!!!!

Used to visit the town much more often but it is not a pleasant experience these days and looks set to get even worse.

Score: 1

jenkins687 says...3:31pm Sun 27 Apr 14

I do not know who thinks having cyclists on the prom has been a success. I certainly do not think so, having several near misses whilst out walking my dog. It is only a matter of time before a child runs across the promenade from a beach hut and is severely injured by a cyclist. Even during the summer when they are not supposed to cycle between 1000 and 1600 they take no notice. Several times I have seen cyclists ignoring red lights and going up one way streets the wrong way

I do not know who thinks having cyclists on the prom has been a success. I certainly do not think so, having several near misses whilst out walking my dog. It is only a matter of time before a child runs across the promenade from a beach hut and is severely injured by a cyclist. Even during the summer when they are not supposed to cycle between 1000 and 1600 they take no notice. Several times I have seen cyclists ignoring red lights and going up one way streets the wrong wayjenkins687

I do not know who thinks having cyclists on the prom has been a success. I certainly do not think so, having several near misses whilst out walking my dog. It is only a matter of time before a child runs across the promenade from a beach hut and is severely injured by a cyclist. Even during the summer when they are not supposed to cycle between 1000 and 1600 they take no notice. Several times I have seen cyclists ignoring red lights and going up one way streets the wrong way

Score: -10

cest vrai says...4:09pm Sun 27 Apr 14

jenkins687 wrote…

I do not know who thinks having cyclists on the prom has been a success. I certainly do not think so, having several near misses whilst out walking my dog. It is only a matter of time before a child runs across the promenade from a beach hut and is severely injured by a cyclist. Even during the summer when they are not supposed to cycle between 1000 and 1600 they take no notice. Several times I have seen cyclists ignoring red lights and going up one way streets the wrong way

So what happened did they get tangled in your 10 metre extendable lead or possibly skidded in the doggy doo left by some other not so responsible owner. You'll be moaning when they some bright spark at the decides to ban dogs on the prom..You'll be saying not me, I always keep pooch on lead/clean up the droppings..its others don't blame the majority for actions of minority which is exactly what you are all doing on here to cyclists. a tad hypocritical

[quote][p][bold]jenkins687[/bold] wrote:
I do not know who thinks having cyclists on the prom has been a success. I certainly do not think so, having several near misses whilst out walking my dog. It is only a matter of time before a child runs across the promenade from a beach hut and is severely injured by a cyclist. Even during the summer when they are not supposed to cycle between 1000 and 1600 they take no notice. Several times I have seen cyclists ignoring red lights and going up one way streets the wrong way[/p][/quote]So what happened did they get tangled in your 10 metre extendable lead or possibly skidded in the doggy doo left by some other not so responsible owner.
You'll be moaning when they some bright spark at the decides to ban dogs on the prom..You'll be saying not me, I always keep pooch on lead/clean up the droppings..its others don't blame the majority for actions of minority which is exactly what you are all doing on here to cyclists. a tad hypocriticalcest vrai

jenkins687 wrote…

I do not know who thinks having cyclists on the prom has been a success. I certainly do not think so, having several near misses whilst out walking my dog. It is only a matter of time before a child runs across the promenade from a beach hut and is severely injured by a cyclist. Even during the summer when they are not supposed to cycle between 1000 and 1600 they take no notice. Several times I have seen cyclists ignoring red lights and going up one way streets the wrong way

So what happened did they get tangled in your 10 metre extendable lead or possibly skidded in the doggy doo left by some other not so responsible owner. You'll be moaning when they some bright spark at the decides to ban dogs on the prom..You'll be saying not me, I always keep pooch on lead/clean up the droppings..its others don't blame the majority for actions of minority which is exactly what you are all doing on here to cyclists. a tad hypocritical

Score: 6

arthur1948 says...10:54pm Sun 27 Apr 14

Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved.... Walk like the pedestrians......

Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved....
Walk like the pedestrians......arthur1948

Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved.... Walk like the pedestrians......

Score: -6

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...7:05am Mon 28 Apr 14

arthur1948 wrote…

Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved.... Walk like the pedestrians......

Its because in Bournemouth you spend more time pushing your bike than actually riding it!

[quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote:
Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved....
Walk like the pedestrians......[/p][/quote]Its because in Bournemouth you spend more time pushing your bike than actually riding it!The-Bleeding-Obvious

arthur1948 wrote…

Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved.... Walk like the pedestrians......

Its because in Bournemouth you spend more time pushing your bike than actually riding it!

Score: 6

skydriver says...8:08am Mon 28 Apr 14

Simple bike riding on the footpath, unless in a cycle lane, is against the law of the land . So why does Bournemouth think it has the right to change that rule. So now nobody knows what is right and what is wrong, all to please but a few. So what about the rule on the sea front in the summer months ? riding of bikes can more take place whenever and wherever the riders wish. Therefore the pedestrians have no say. Yet another crackpot council.from the leader down.

Simple bike riding on the footpath, unless in a cycle lane, is against the law of the land . So why does Bournemouth think it has the right to change that rule.
So now nobody knows what is right and what is wrong, all to please but a few.
So what about the rule on the sea front in the summer months ? riding of bikes can more take place whenever and wherever the riders wish. Therefore the pedestrians have no say.
Yet another crackpot council.from the leader down.skydriver

Simple bike riding on the footpath, unless in a cycle lane, is against the law of the land . So why does Bournemouth think it has the right to change that rule. So now nobody knows what is right and what is wrong, all to please but a few. So what about the rule on the sea front in the summer months ? riding of bikes can more take place whenever and wherever the riders wish. Therefore the pedestrians have no say. Yet another crackpot council.from the leader down.

Score: -10

Azphreal says...9:38am Mon 28 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

pete woodley wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.

The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.

No it was an attack by a cyclist who did not like being told they were BREAKING THE LAW by riding on the pavement. I do not drive or cycle but am sick of cyclists who go on about drivers and how unsafe the roads are due to them,if you do not feel safe do not use a bike. I am sick of idiots on bikes speeding down the pavement and almost hitting my daughter in her wheelchair but it seems that many on here think its ok for people to do this. They complain about drivers not following the law and driving in a dangerous manner but then defend cyclists doing the exact same.

[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.[/p][/quote]The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.[/p][/quote]No it was an attack by a cyclist who did not like being told they were BREAKING THE LAW by riding on the pavement. I do not drive or cycle but am sick of cyclists who go on about drivers and how unsafe the roads are due to them,if you do not feel safe do not use a bike. I am sick of idiots on bikes speeding down the pavement and almost hitting my daughter in her wheelchair but it seems that many on here think its ok for people to do this. They complain about drivers not following the law and driving in a dangerous manner but then defend cyclists doing the exact same.Azphreal

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

pete woodley wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.

The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.

No it was an attack by a cyclist who did not like being told they were BREAKING THE LAW by riding on the pavement. I do not drive or cycle but am sick of cyclists who go on about drivers and how unsafe the roads are due to them,if you do not feel safe do not use a bike. I am sick of idiots on bikes speeding down the pavement and almost hitting my daughter in her wheelchair but it seems that many on here think its ok for people to do this. They complain about drivers not following the law and driving in a dangerous manner but then defend cyclists doing the exact same.

Score: -10

The-Bleeding-Obvious says...11:01am Mon 28 Apr 14

Azphreal wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

pete woodley wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.

The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.

No it was an attack by a cyclist who did not like being told they were BREAKING THE LAW by riding on the pavement. I do not drive or cycle but am sick of cyclists who go on about drivers and how unsafe the roads are due to them,if you do not feel safe do not use a bike. I am sick of idiots on bikes speeding down the pavement and almost hitting my daughter in her wheelchair but it seems that many on here think its ok for people to do this. They complain about drivers not following the law and driving in a dangerous manner but then defend cyclists doing the exact same.

That's a good old fashioned anti-cycling rant! We've got roads for cars, pavements for peds and almost nothing for cyclists and the most common sign in the town must be 'No Cycling'! What do you suggest; uninvent the bike? None of the commenters on here are saying its ok to speed down the pavement! Collisions between peds and cyclists? Yes it's almost always almost!

[quote][p][bold]Azphreal[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]cest vrai[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ?
Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]Oh please please Marty don't tell me Ukip are anti cycling. You have torn my vote away from the establishment don't let me down now.[/p][/quote]Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it.
There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.[/p][/quote]DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.[/p][/quote]The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.[/p][/quote]No it was an attack by a cyclist who did not like being told they were BREAKING THE LAW by riding on the pavement. I do not drive or cycle but am sick of cyclists who go on about drivers and how unsafe the roads are due to them,if you do not feel safe do not use a bike. I am sick of idiots on bikes speeding down the pavement and almost hitting my daughter in her wheelchair but it seems that many on here think its ok for people to do this. They complain about drivers not following the law and driving in a dangerous manner but then defend cyclists doing the exact same.[/p][/quote]That's a good old fashioned anti-cycling rant!
We've got roads for cars, pavements for peds and almost nothing for cyclists and the most common sign in the town must be 'No Cycling'! What do you suggest; uninvent the bike?
None of the commenters on here are saying its ok to speed down the pavement!
Collisions between peds and cyclists? Yes it's almost always almost!The-Bleeding-Obvious

Azphreal wrote…

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

pete woodley wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

cest vrai wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

Not anti cycling, anti Councillors putting cyclist in situations whereby they are actually breaking the law and considering that a pensioner had just been severely injured by a cyclists riding on a pavement I would have thought that Cllr Grit would a thought this through a little harder before even suggesting it. There is simply no valid reason that I can think of for anyone to ride a bike through a pedestrianised area, its actually hard enough to walk behind some people let alone cycle.

DEAD right,How can a councillor support this idiotic idea.its just asking for trouble,but then does Gritt ever walk through the Square,he would be the first to kick up if it was outside his house.I think its just to see his name in print.

The injury was not the result of a collision with the cyclist.

No it was an attack by a cyclist who did not like being told they were BREAKING THE LAW by riding on the pavement. I do not drive or cycle but am sick of cyclists who go on about drivers and how unsafe the roads are due to them,if you do not feel safe do not use a bike. I am sick of idiots on bikes speeding down the pavement and almost hitting my daughter in her wheelchair but it seems that many on here think its ok for people to do this. They complain about drivers not following the law and driving in a dangerous manner but then defend cyclists doing the exact same.

That's a good old fashioned anti-cycling rant! We've got roads for cars, pavements for peds and almost nothing for cyclists and the most common sign in the town must be 'No Cycling'! What do you suggest; uninvent the bike? None of the commenters on here are saying its ok to speed down the pavement! Collisions between peds and cyclists? Yes it's almost always almost!

Score: 12

Marty Caine UKIP says...12:16pm Mon 28 Apr 14

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

arthur1948 wrote…

Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved.... Walk like the pedestrians......

Its because in Bournemouth you spend more time pushing your bike than actually riding it!

Funny I never have to get out of my car and push it but then I don't drive through pedestrianised areas, I even indicate when passing a cyclist to let other drivers know they are there but some of the nonsense comments on this thread are making me wonder if this is a common attitude amongst cyclists and if so I will happily scrap that consideration, especially when I think of a young girl spending 7 weeks in hospital because I cyclist had no regard for the law. So do keep up your negative clicks and sarky comments I am sure you will succeed in making me and many others anti cyclists in the end.

[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]arthur1948[/bold] wrote:
Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved....
Walk like the pedestrians......[/p][/quote]Its because in Bournemouth you spend more time pushing your bike than actually riding it![/p][/quote]Funny I never have to get out of my car and push it but then I don't drive through pedestrianised areas, I even indicate when passing a cyclist to let other drivers know they are there but some of the nonsense comments on this thread are making me wonder if this is a common attitude amongst cyclists and if so I will happily scrap that consideration, especially when I think of a young girl spending 7 weeks in hospital because I cyclist had no regard for the law.
So do keep up your negative clicks and sarky comments I am sure you will succeed in making me and many others anti cyclists in the end.Marty Caine UKIP

The-Bleeding-Obvious wrote…

arthur1948 wrote…

Why can't they get off and push them for the short distance involved.... Walk like the pedestrians......

Its because in Bournemouth you spend more time pushing your bike than actually riding it!

Funny I never have to get out of my car and push it but then I don't drive through pedestrianised areas, I even indicate when passing a cyclist to let other drivers know they are there but some of the nonsense comments on this thread are making me wonder if this is a common attitude amongst cyclists and if so I will happily scrap that consideration, especially when I think of a young girl spending 7 weeks in hospital because I cyclist had no regard for the law. So do keep up your negative clicks and sarky comments I am sure you will succeed in making me and many others anti cyclists in the end.

Simple bike riding on the footpath, unless in a cycle lane, is against the law of the land . So why does Bournemouth think it has the right to change that rule. So now nobody knows what is right and what is wrong, all to please but a few. So what about the rule on the sea front in the summer months ? riding of bikes can more take place whenever and wherever the riders wish. Therefore the pedestrians have no say. Yet another crackpot council.from the leader down.

As pointed out before the square area is not a footpath as defined by the relevant traffic act. It is council land and by amending or creating a bylaw they can after following due process do what they want.

[quote][p][bold]skydriver[/bold] wrote:
Simple bike riding on the footpath, unless in a cycle lane, is against the law of the land . So why does Bournemouth think it has the right to change that rule.
So now nobody knows what is right and what is wrong, all to please but a few.
So what about the rule on the sea front in the summer months ? riding of bikes can more take place whenever and wherever the riders wish. Therefore the pedestrians have no say.
Yet another crackpot council.from the leader down.[/p][/quote]As pointed out before the square area is not a footpath as defined by the relevant traffic act. It is council land and by amending or creating a bylaw they can after following due process do what they want.cest vrai

skydriver wrote…

Simple bike riding on the footpath, unless in a cycle lane, is against the law of the land . So why does Bournemouth think it has the right to change that rule. So now nobody knows what is right and what is wrong, all to please but a few. So what about the rule on the sea front in the summer months ? riding of bikes can more take place whenever and wherever the riders wish. Therefore the pedestrians have no say. Yet another crackpot council.from the leader down.

As pointed out before the square area is not a footpath as defined by the relevant traffic act. It is council land and by amending or creating a bylaw they can after following due process do what they want.

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote:
You mean your car hasn't got peddles?
Negative clicks, sarky comments, anti cyclist, you fit all three.[/p][/quote]No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.Marty Caine UKIP

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Score: -8

Dorset Logic says...2:08pm Mon 28 Apr 14

KLH wrote…

Has Mr Gritt ever had the experience of a cyclist hurtling down Richmond Hill, and missing him by millimetres. Or Orchard Street (next to Primark)? Or stood anywhere on Commercial Road and nearly been knocked off his feet. Plenty of people about who have walking aids, unsteady on their feet, this is going to fill their hearts with joy, already frightening enough.

We really need a Logan's run type solution in this country

[quote][p][bold]KLH[/bold] wrote:
Has Mr Gritt ever had the experience of a cyclist hurtling down Richmond Hill, and missing him by millimetres. Or Orchard Street (next to Primark)? Or stood anywhere on Commercial Road and nearly been knocked off his feet. Plenty of people about who have walking aids, unsteady on their feet, this is going to fill their hearts with joy, already frightening enough.[/p][/quote]We really need a Logan's run type solution in this countryDorset Logic

KLH wrote…

Has Mr Gritt ever had the experience of a cyclist hurtling down Richmond Hill, and missing him by millimetres. Or Orchard Street (next to Primark)? Or stood anywhere on Commercial Road and nearly been knocked off his feet. Plenty of people about who have walking aids, unsteady on their feet, this is going to fill their hearts with joy, already frightening enough.

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote:
You mean your car hasn't got peddles?
Negative clicks, sarky comments, anti cyclist, you fit all three.[/p][/quote]No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.[/p][/quote]Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!jobsworthwatch

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!

Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly? If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road. Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists!

[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote:
You mean your car hasn't got peddles?
Negative clicks, sarky comments, anti cyclist, you fit all three.[/p][/quote]No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.[/p][/quote]Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives![/p][/quote]Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly?
If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road.
Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists!Marty Caine UKIP

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!

Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly? If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road. Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists!

Score: -4

A N Archist says...8:10pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Mixing cyclists and peds has worked in Amsterdam and Copenhagen for decades. Why not here.

Mixing cyclists and peds has worked in Amsterdam and Copenhagen for decades. Why not here.A N Archist

Mixing cyclists and peds has worked in Amsterdam and Copenhagen for decades. Why not here.

Score: 1

A N Archist says...8:17pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Instead of anecdotally arguing why don't you lot get onto RoSPA and ask a basic question like I did when we were having this debate in York 10 years ago. From 2005. Fatalities from cyclists and peds colliding. 4 cyclists killed 3 peds killed. Source RoSPA I have seen a ped killed by a cyclist jumping a red light. That cyclist went down for 4 years. Nothing to do with pavements. Motorists that kill frequently get no more than a ban.

Instead of anecdotally arguing why don't you lot get onto RoSPA and ask a basic question like I did when we were having this debate in York 10 years ago.
From 2005. Fatalities from cyclists and peds colliding. 4 cyclists killed 3 peds killed.
Source RoSPA
I have seen a ped killed by a cyclist jumping a red light. That cyclist went down for 4 years. Nothing to do with pavements. Motorists that kill frequently get no more than a ban.A N Archist

Instead of anecdotally arguing why don't you lot get onto RoSPA and ask a basic question like I did when we were having this debate in York 10 years ago. From 2005. Fatalities from cyclists and peds colliding. 4 cyclists killed 3 peds killed. Source RoSPA I have seen a ped killed by a cyclist jumping a red light. That cyclist went down for 4 years. Nothing to do with pavements. Motorists that kill frequently get no more than a ban.

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!

Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly? If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road. Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists!

Yet more claptrap, wasn't Marty Caine a comedienne?

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote:
You mean your car hasn't got peddles?
Negative clicks, sarky comments, anti cyclist, you fit all three.[/p][/quote]No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.[/p][/quote]Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives![/p][/quote]Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly?
If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road.
Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists![/p][/quote]Yet more claptrap, wasn't Marty Caine a comedienne?The-Bleeding-Obvious

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!

Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly? If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road. Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists!

Yet more claptrap, wasn't Marty Caine a comedienne?

Score: 2

pete woodley says...9:00pm Mon 28 Apr 14

Marty,you are wasting your time trying to talk sense into some on here,as you say very brave when anonymous.

Marty,you are wasting your time trying to talk sense into some on here,as you say very brave when anonymous.pete woodley

Marty,you are wasting your time trying to talk sense into some on here,as you say very brave when anonymous.

Score: -2

Marty Caine UKIP says...9:15pm Mon 28 Apr 14

A N Archist wrote…

Mixing cyclists and peds has worked in Amsterdam and Copenhagen for decades. Why not here.

No it hasn't, In Holland you have cycle tracks between the pavements and the roads but cyclists are not allowed to ride in pedestrianised areas, at least use real facts to make a point.

[quote][p][bold]A N Archist[/bold] wrote:
Mixing cyclists and peds has worked in Amsterdam and Copenhagen for decades. Why not here.[/p][/quote]No it hasn't, In Holland you have cycle tracks between the pavements and the roads but cyclists are not allowed to ride in pedestrianised areas, at least use real facts to make a point.Marty Caine UKIP

A N Archist wrote…

Mixing cyclists and peds has worked in Amsterdam and Copenhagen for decades. Why not here.

No it hasn't, In Holland you have cycle tracks between the pavements and the roads but cyclists are not allowed to ride in pedestrianised areas, at least use real facts to make a point.

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!

Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly? If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road. Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists!

Yet more claptrap, wasn't Marty Caine a comedienne?

There was a very good comedienne used the stage name of Marti Caine, famous for the New Faces and unfortunately died of cancer. Her original name was Lynne Shepherd and she chose her stage after it was on my birth certificate. Not sure if she rode a bike but I am sure she would have had more sense to do so where it could be a danger to others. A bit like most sensible cyclists that don't look at their chosen form of transport as some kind of ludicrous cult thing.

[quote][p][bold]The-Bleeding-Obvious[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jobsworthwatch[/bold] wrote:
You mean your car hasn't got peddles?
Negative clicks, sarky comments, anti cyclist, you fit all three.[/p][/quote]No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.[/p][/quote]Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives![/p][/quote]Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly?
If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road.
Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists![/p][/quote]Yet more claptrap, wasn't Marty Caine a comedienne?[/p][/quote]There was a very good comedienne used the stage name of Marti Caine, famous for the New Faces and unfortunately died of cancer. Her original name was Lynne Shepherd and she chose her stage after it was on my birth certificate. Not sure if she rode a bike but I am sure she would have had more sense to do so where it could be a danger to others. A bit like most sensible cyclists that don't look at their chosen form of transport as some kind of ludicrous cult thing.Marty Caine UKIP

No, because my car does have peddles actually, one brake and one accelerator, I am not anti Cyclists, though I have to be honest and say that the elderly, the disabled and young children do rate higher than them in my care factor, as it should with the Council.

Yeah, your car weighs in the order of a tonne and cars kill and maim far more people on the pavement than cyclists and of course you kill in the order of 100 cyclists every year. Cyclist present very little threat to peds whether old, young or disabled, 80% of collisions between peds and cyclists occur in the road. Stop the emotional claptrap and apply some logic, cycling responsibly on the pavement saves lives!

Well actually I have never killed anyone with my car, cyclists or otherwise so who is the moron coming out with emotional claptrap exactly? If a child comes running out in front of you on a pedestrianised area, you are going to hurt that child, that is a fact but hey that doesn't matter to you does it, just so long as you do not have to get off your bike, because you are a cyclist and are oh so special. Wake up call, you are not. In fact what you really are is an anonymous little troll who does not even have the conviction to put your name to your own nonsense comments, such as 80% of collisions between pedestrians and cyclist happen on the road. Ride your cycle sensibly on roads and cycle paths and leave the pedestrianised areas to pedestrians. Even in Holland they have the common sense not to allow cyclists on pedestrianised areas and you certainly cannot say the Dutch are anti cyclists!

Yet more claptrap, wasn't Marty Caine a comedienne?

There was a very good comedienne used the stage name of Marti Caine, famous for the New Faces and unfortunately died of cancer. Her original name was Lynne Shepherd and she chose her stage after it was on my birth certificate. Not sure if she rode a bike but I am sure she would have had more sense to do so where it could be a danger to others. A bit like most sensible cyclists that don't look at their chosen form of transport as some kind of ludicrous cult thing.

Score: -2

FNS-man says...2:24pm Tue 29 Apr 14

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

FNS-man wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine. Anything else you'd just like to make up?

Would you think that I made up rule 64 of the Highway Code ? 64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 It actually carries a fixed penalty notice of £30 if pleading guilty but you can be fined up to £500. But just out of curiosity do you agree with the idea of letting cyclists ride on pedestrianised areas ?

I think that the point is that a pedestrianised area is not a pavement. The relevant law (S72 of the 1835 HA) only applies to paths running alongside roads (which the Highway Code interprets for us as a "pavement"). Therefore any area that is not beside a road is fine to cycle on, unless there is a specific bye-law prohibiting cycling there. As I said is likely the case with these areas. It's a lot safer mixing pedestrians and bikes than it is mixing bikes and cars. If you are really worried about safety for children and old people, you should be trying to get safe and direct routes for them to cycle on. Then there will be fewer people in cars on the road, and fewer people cycling on the pavement.

[quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]FNS-man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Marty Caine UKIP[/bold] wrote: Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.[/p][/quote]It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine. Anything else you'd just like to make up?[/p][/quote]Would you think that I made up rule 64 of the Highway Code ? 64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 It actually carries a fixed penalty notice of £30 if pleading guilty but you can be fined up to £500. But just out of curiosity do you agree with the idea of letting cyclists ride on pedestrianised areas ?[/p][/quote]I think that the point is that a pedestrianised area is not a pavement. The relevant law (S72 of the 1835 HA) only applies to paths running alongside roads (which the Highway Code interprets for us as a "pavement"). Therefore any area that is not beside a road is fine to cycle on, unless there is a specific bye-law prohibiting cycling there. As I said is likely the case with these areas.
It's a lot safer mixing pedestrians and bikes than it is mixing bikes and cars. If you are really worried about safety for children and old people, you should be trying to get safe and direct routes for them to cycle on. Then there will be fewer people in cars on the road, and fewer people cycling on the pavement.FNS-man

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

FNS-man wrote…

Marty Caine UKIP wrote…

Maybe someone from the Council, ideally Cllr Grit, can explain to me just when it became possible for councillors to ignore the law of the land ? Maybe a read of the Highway Act 1835 section 72 is in order.

It might be a good idea if you read it as well. It only applies to paths running alongside roads. So hardly applicable to the square. There will be a bye-law preventing cycling there, I imagine. Anything else you'd just like to make up?

Would you think that I made up rule 64 of the Highway Code ? 64 - You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129 It actually carries a fixed penalty notice of £30 if pleading guilty but you can be fined up to £500. But just out of curiosity do you agree with the idea of letting cyclists ride on pedestrianised areas ?

I think that the point is that a pedestrianised area is not a pavement. The relevant law (S72 of the 1835 HA) only applies to paths running alongside roads (which the Highway Code interprets for us as a "pavement"). Therefore any area that is not beside a road is fine to cycle on, unless there is a specific bye-law prohibiting cycling there. As I said is likely the case with these areas. It's a lot safer mixing pedestrians and bikes than it is mixing bikes and cars. If you are really worried about safety for children and old people, you should be trying to get safe and direct routes for them to cycle on. Then there will be fewer people in cars on the road, and fewer people cycling on the pavement.

Score: 2

bobthedestroyer says...11:41pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Not sure how this makes it safer for cyclists. This is just another mad scramble to get rid of the "Bournemouth is dangerous for cyclists" tag we picked up recently. Why not actually look at investing an the infrastructure for cars and bikes. Yes it will cost a lot of money but rather than trying to paper over the cracks actually try and fix it.

Not sure how this makes it safer for cyclists. This is just another mad scramble to get rid of the "Bournemouth is dangerous for cyclists" tag we picked up recently. Why not actually look at investing an the infrastructure for cars and bikes. Yes it will cost a lot of money but rather than trying to paper over the cracks actually try and fix it.bobthedestroyer

Not sure how this makes it safer for cyclists. This is just another mad scramble to get rid of the "Bournemouth is dangerous for cyclists" tag we picked up recently. Why not actually look at investing an the infrastructure for cars and bikes. Yes it will cost a lot of money but rather than trying to paper over the cracks actually try and fix it.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here